[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




                  THE STATE OF THE LIVESTOCK INDUSTRY:
                         PRODUCER PERSPECTIVES

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

             SUBCOMMITTEE ON LIVESTOCK, DAIRY, AND POULTRY

                                 OF THE

                        COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________


                             MARCH 4, 2025

                               __________


                            Serial No. 119-2





                 [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]





          Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture
                         agriculture.house.gov






                               ______
                                 

                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

64-648 PDF                WASHINGTON : 2026














                        COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE

                 GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania, Chairman

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma             ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota, Ranking 
AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia, Vice          Minority Member
Chairman                             DAVID SCOTT, Georgia
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas  JIM COSTA, California
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee          JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts
DOUG LaMALFA, California             ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina
DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina         JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut
TRENT KELLY, Mississippi             SHONTEL M. BROWN, Ohio, Vice 
DON BACON, Nebraska                  Ranking Minority Member
MIKE BOST, Illinois                  SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas
DUSTY JOHNSON, South Dakota          ANDREA SALINAS, Oregon
JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana              DONALD G. DAVIS, North Carolina
TRACEY MANN, Kansas                  JILL N. TOKUDA, Hawaii
RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa                 NIKKI BUDZINSKI, Illinois
MARY E. MILLER, Illinois             ERIC SORENSEN, Illinois
BARRY MOORE, Alabama                 GABE VASQUEZ, New Mexico
KAT CAMMACK, Florida                 JONATHAN L. JACKSON, Illinois
BRAD FINSTAD, Minnesota              SHRI THANEDAR, Michigan
JOHN W. ROSE, Tennessee              ADAM GRAY, California
RONNY JACKSON, Texas                 KRISTEN McDONALD RIVET, Michigan
MONICA De La CRUZ, Texas             SHOMARI FIGURES, Alabama
ZACHARY NUNN, Iowa                   EUGENE SIMON VINDMAN, Virginia
DERRICK VAN ORDEN, Wisconsin         JOSH RILEY, New York
DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington             JOHN W. MANNION, New York
TONY WIED, Wisconsin                 APRIL McCLAIN DELANEY, Maryland
ROBERT P. BRESNAHAN, Jr.,            CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
Pennsylvania                         SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California
MARK B. MESSMER, Indiana
MARK HARRIS, North Carolina
DAVID J. TAYLOR, Ohio

                                 ______

                     Parish Braden, Staff Director

                 Brian Sowyrda, Minority Staff Director

                                 ______

             Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry

                     TRACEY MANN, Kansas, Chairman

DERRICK VAN ORDEN, Wisconsin, Vice   JIM COSTA, California, Ranking 
Chair                                Minority Member
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee          JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut
TRENT KELLY, Mississippi             DONALD G. DAVIS, North Carolina
DON BACON, Nebraska                  ADAM GRAY, California, Vice 
JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana              Ranking Minority Member
RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa                 JOSH RILEY, New York
MARY E. MILLER, Illinois             ------
BARRY MOORE, Alabama                 ------
BRAD FINSTAD, Minnesota              ------
RONNY JACKSON, Texas                 ------
TONY WIED, Wisconsin                 ------
MARK B. MESSMER, Indiana             ------
MARK HARRIS, North Carolina          ------
                                     ------

                                  (ii)









                             C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Costa, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from California, 
  opening statement..............................................     3
    Submitted letter on behalf of Kevin Abernathy, General 
      Manager, Milk Producers Council............................    72
Craig, Hon. Angie, a Representative in Congress from Minnesota, 
  opening statement..............................................     7
    Prepared statement...........................................     8
Mann, Hon. Tracey, a Representative in Congress from Kansas, 
  opening statement..............................................     1
    Prepared statement...........................................     3
Nunn, Hon. Zachary, a Representative in Congress from Iowa, 
  submitted letter...............................................    71
Thompson, Hon. Glenn, a Representative in Congress from 
  Pennsylvania, opening statement................................     5
    Prepared statement...........................................     6
    Submitted statement on behalf of American Bankers 
      Association, Farm Credit Council, Independent Community 
      Bankers of America.........................................    71

                               Witnesses

Zimmerman, John, Immediate Past Chairman, National Turkey 
  Federation, Northfield, MN.....................................    10
    Prepared statement...........................................    12
    Submitted questions..........................................    73
Stevermer, Lori, President, National Pork Producers Council, 
  Easton, MN.....................................................    15
    Prepared statement...........................................    16
    Submitted questions..........................................    74
West, Mike, President, J.S. West & Companies, Inc.; Chairman, 
  United Egg Producers, Modesto, CA..............................    21
    Prepared statement...........................................    23
    Submitted question...........................................    76
Hopkins, Larry, Region III Director, Executive Board, American 
  Sheep Industry Association, Zionsville, IN.....................    29
    Prepared statement...........................................    31
Schweitzer, Walter, President, Montana Farmers Union, Geyser, MT.    33
    Prepared statement...........................................    35
    Submitted question...........................................    76
Sander, Troy, Past Chairman, Live Cattle Marketing Committee, 
  National Cattlemen's Beef Association, Oklahoma City, OK.......    39
    Prepared statement...........................................    40
    Submitted questions..........................................    77









 
                  THE STATE OF THE LIVESTOCK INDUSTRY:
                         PRODUCER PERSPECTIVES

                              ----------                              


                         TUESDAY, MARCH 4, 2025

                  House of Representatives,
             Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry,
                                  Committee on Agriculture,
                                                   Washington, D.C.
    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m., in 
Room 1300 of the Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Tracey 
Mann [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
    Members present: Representatives Mann, Bacon, Baird, 
Feenstra, Miller, Finstad, Messmer, Harris, Thompson (ex 
officio), Nunn, Costa, Hayes, Davis, Gray, Riley, Craig (ex 
officio), and Vasquez.
    Staff present: Justin Benavidez, Timothy Fitzgerald, 
Benjamin Goldey, Justina Graff, John Hendrix, Patricia 
Straughn, John Konya, Faye Thomas, Britton Burdick, Suzie 
Cavalier, Daniel Feingold, Kate Fink, Michael Stein, and 
Jackson Blodgett.

  OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TRACEY MANN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
                      CONGRESS FROM KANSAS

    The Chairman. The hearing will come to order. Please rise 
and join me for a quick prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance. 
Please stand.
    Lord, thank you that we all get to live in the greatest 
country in the history of the world. Thank you for all of our 
ag producers all over the country that are doing what they do 
best, which is to feed, fuel, and clothe not just this country, 
but the rest of the world as well. We pray for wisdom and 
discernment for this Committee, and we pray for this hearing we 
are about to have. In Jesus' name, Amen.
    Please join me for the Pledge.
    Welcome, and thank you for joining us for this morning's 
hearing entitled, The State of the Livestock Industry: Producer 
Perspectives. After brief opening remarks, Members will receive 
testimony from our witnesses today, and then the hearing will 
be open for questions. In consultation with the Ranking Member 
and pursuant to Rule XI(e), I want to make Members of the 
Subcommittee aware that other Members of the full Committee 
will also be able to join us today.
    I recognize myself for an opening statement.
    It is an honor to chair this hearing of the House 
Agriculture Committee's Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and 
Poultry in the 119th Congress. As a fifth generation Kansan 
having grown up on my family farm, I rode pens and doctored 
thousands of sick cattle at our preconditioning feedyard. I 
understand the grit, tenacity, and courage that it takes to 
make a living in agriculture, and the burden of responsibility 
for feeding the world that comes along with it.
    As we get started this morning, I want to recognize Scott 
Foot with Foot Cattle Company, who is in the audience with us, 
along with his daughter, Molly Foot. His family feeds cattle 
throughout the State of Kansas. He is my guest at tonight's 
State of the Union, and I appreciate him joining us this 
morning.
    Chairing this Subcommittee for the second Congress in a row 
is a unique honor for me as I represent the Big First, where 
producers sell $10 billion worth of livestock, dairy, poultry, 
and products like beef, milk, and eggs every year.
    That does not happen in a vacuum. It takes the entire 
animal agriculture chain to make that happen, and we see it all 
in the Big First District of Kansas. From the producer to the 
feedlot and from the harvest facility to the distributor, every 
role is important in delivering protein to the market and to 
the consumer.
    During the 118th Congress, Members of this Committee 
traveled the country to visit with farmers, ranchers, and 
agricultural producers about the need for a 5 year farm bill 
that is long enough to provide certainty and short enough to 
respond to market changes. Chairman Thompson and I hosted more 
than 150 Kansans at a listening session in the middle of a 
wheat field near Gypsum, Kansas, and I suspect that many of the 
issues raised there will also be raised again today.
    I was pleased to see those issues directly addressed in the 
Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2024 (H.R. 8467), 
which passed on a bipartisan basis out of this Committee last 
year. That legislation would have maintained American food 
independence, invested tax dollars where we would see a return 
on those dollars, protected crop insurance, promoted trade 
programs that helped America remain competitive and secure, 
conducted rigorous oversight of the executive branch, promoted 
animal health, invested in agricultural research in America's 
land-grant universities, and much more. As the Chairman of this 
Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry, I was proud of 
that legislation. And as a Kansan, I was proud, too. I am eager 
to hear from you all today about what is working, what should 
be considered, where additional investment may be required, and 
where the Federal Government needs to get out of your way. As 
time has taught us, even if well intended, more legislation and 
regulation is almost never the answer.
    The past 4 years under the Biden Administration were a 
perfect example of what can happen when the government gets in 
the way. Whether it was its proposed Salmonella Framework that 
would have increased costs for producers and consumers with no 
real impact on public health; its botched response to the 
Highly-Pathogenic Avian Influenza; or its water regulations 
which would have put several processing facilities out of 
business, we must learn from these mistakes and not hamstring 
America's farmers, ranchers, and our ag producers.
    As we work to craft the next farm bill, we look forward to 
today's conversation and to continuing our work together in the 
119th Congress.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Mann follows:]

 Prepared Statement of Hon. Tracey Mann, a Representative in Congress 
                              from Kansas
    It is an honor to chair this hearing of the House Agriculture 
Committee's Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry in the 119th 
Congress. As a fifth generation Kansan having grown up on my family 
farm, I rode pens and doctored thousands of sick cattle at our 
preconditioning feedlot. I understand the grit, tenacity, and courage 
that it takes to make a living in agriculture, and the burden of 
responsibility for feeding the world that comes along with it.
    Chairing this Subcommittee for the second Congress in a row is a 
unique honor for me as I represent the Big First, where producers sell 
$10 billion worth of livestock, dairy, poultry, and products like beef, 
milk, and eggs every year.
    That does not happen in a vacuum. It takes the entire animal 
agriculture chain to make that happen--and we see it all in the Big 
First. From the producer to the feedlot and from the harvest facility 
to the distributor, every role is important in delivering protein to 
the market and to the consumer.
    During the 118th Congress, Members of this Committee traveled the 
country to visit with farmers, ranchers, and agricultural producers 
about the need for a 5 year farm bill that is long enough to provide 
certainty and short enough to respond to market changes. Chairman 
Thompson and I hosted more than 150 Kansans at a listening session in 
the middle of a wheat field near Gypsum, Kansas, and I suspect that 
many of the issues raised there will be raised again today.
    I was pleased to see those issues directly addressed in the Farm, 
Food, and National Security Act of 2024, which passed on a bipartisan 
basis out of this Committee last year. That legislation would have 
maintained American food independence, invested tax dollars where we 
could see a return on those dollars, protected crop insurance, promoted 
trade programs that helped America remain competitive and secure, 
conducted rigorous oversight of the executive branch, promoted animal 
health, invested in agricultural research in America's land-grant 
universities, and more. As the Chairman of this Subcommittee on 
Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry, I was proud of that legislation. And as 
a Kansan, I was proud, too. I am eager to hear from you all today about 
what's working, what should be reconsidered, where additional 
investment may be required, and where the Federal Government needs to 
get out of your way. As time has taught us, even if well intended, more 
legislation and regulation is almost never the answer.
    The past 4 years under the Biden Administration were a perfect 
example of what can happen when the government gets in the way. Whether 
it was its proposed Salmonella Framework that would have increased 
costs for producers and consumers with no real impact on public health; 
its botched response to the Highly-Pathogenic Avian Influenza; or its 
water regulations which would have put several processing facilities 
out of business, we must learn from these mistakes and not hamstring 
America's farmers, ranchers, and agricultural producers.
    As we work to craft the next farm bill, we look forward to today's 
conversation and to continuing our work together in the 119th Congress.

    The Chairman. With that, I would now like to welcome the 
distinguished Ranking Member, the gentleman from California, 
Mr. Costa, for any opening remarks that he would like to give.

   OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JIM COSTA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
                    CONGRESS FROM CALIFORNIA

    Mr. Costa. Thank you very much, Chairman Mann, and Members 
of our Subcommittee for this important, timely hearing. It is 
important that we have people who are where the rubber meets 
the road, so to speak, talk to us about the state of the 
livestock industry throughout the country, and the regional 
impacts that we are all feeling with the challenges that we 
have had in the last several years, especially with the high-
path avian flu and the poultry industry and the dairy industry, 
and how we have tried to address that.
    So, it is important that we have that conversation here 
today, but let me also say that this follows on the backdrop of 
the President's announcement of tariffs pending with regards to 
Canada, Mexico, and China being implemented today. And for 
those of you who I have served with, have the privilege to 
serve with over the years, what I say is not new. I have never 
been a fan of tariffs, regardless if it is a Democratic or 
Republican Administration. I just think that there are taxes on 
American consumers. They are taxes on producers, and everyone 
has leverage in that game. And by the way, I remember being a 
part of the effort to rebrand NAFTA, NAFTA 2, or the United 
States-Mexico-Canada Accord, which was at the time when I voted 
for it and supported it on a bipartisan fashion, heard that it 
was the greatest, best trade deal ever known to mankind. And my 
gosh, if that were the case, I am wondering why on that 
backdrop we are putting tariffs on two of our biggest trading 
partners, Canada and Mexico. By the way, it is subject for 
review next year.
    They not only are our top trading partners, but I am 
looking forward to hearing witnesses comment about their view, 
because our fragile food supply chain, as I have always said as 
a third-generation farmer in California, started off in the 
dairy business, my family did. I know how to milk cows and a 
few other things. Our witnesses by the impact that we have seen 
that food, as I always say in every committee hearing, is a 
national security issue. It is. Majority of Americans don't 
necessarily think about it because they go to the grocery store 
and all the food in the world is there, and their favorite fast 
food or restaurants. But is a national security issue, and 
international security issue, as we have seen Russia weaponize 
grain in this Ukraine war after their attack.
    So, today we are going to hear from producers on how 
fragile our food supply is. We cannot take it for granted. We 
had experiences--all of us did--during the COVID-19 pandemic 
that demonstrated how fragile our food supply system is, and 
how emergencies like the Highly-Pathogenic Avian Flu can impact 
industries across the nation, especially our poultry and dairy 
industries.
    As I reflect today, I would be remiss not to mention the 
continued challenges faced by producers in my district, as they 
have concerns about terminations of critical civil service 
staff within the United States Department of Agriculture's 
Agricultural Research Service, Natural Resources Conservation 
Services, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 
APHIS, and much more. This includes firings of people who were 
working on avian flu response, trying to help producers recover 
while dealing with preventing the next pandemic. This 
Administration now is trying to figure out how to hire those 
workers back. I think that is evidence that even they know that 
it was misguided and poorly timed.
    This continues to be a great concern in my district and 
constituents. Let me give you some other examples quickly, and 
I will allow our witnesses to tell us what they want us to 
know.
    We had delays in payments from the Emergency Livestock 
Program, helping producers impacted by the high-path avian flu. 
In California, only one percent of our dairies have received 
their payments in California. That is not right. Delays in 
payments for conservation services, leaving farmers to question 
whether or not they want to move forward with key projects to 
help sustain themselves, and EQIP programs and the like. Delays 
in key research that requires 24/7, such as those at USDA 
Agricultural Research Services, these are things that I am 
hearing from my constituents here, and you couple that with the 
issue of the potential impact of tariffs, and mass deportation, 
and I can tell you in farm country in California, folks are 
concerned.
    The testimonies today that we are looking forward to 
hearing will talk about investing in the next generation's 
workforce. It is critical that we retain the talented people in 
the United States Department of Agriculture to ensure 
resilience and security of our food supply chain.
    I would like to submit for the record concerns that I have 
heard from my district, Mr. Chairman, about the delays in this 
funding, if that will be accepted.
    The Chairman. Without objection.
    Mr. Costa. Without objection, thank you.
    California continues to be, as you know, the largest ag 
producing state in the nation, $58 billion last year at the 
farmgate with over 300 commodities. I have the honor and 
privilege, along with my other colleagues in the valley, to 
represent parts of Fresno, Tulare County, two of the top ag 
producing counties in the state, and in the nation. We are 
proud of that fact, like you are proud, Mr. Chairman, of your 
production in your home district as well.
    And so, trade will continue to play a role in this 
Congress, and I look forward to working with my colleagues in a 
bipartisan, comprehensive effort on trade agreements and 
getting a bipartisan farm bill, as you stated on the outset, 
and we need to get that work done here this year.
    I will look forward to hearing the testimony. Thank you 
very much.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Ranking Member.
    Next, I will recognize Chairman Thompson, my good friend 
from Pennsylvania, for any opening comments that he would like 
to make.

 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GLENN THOMPSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
                   CONGRESS FROM PENNSYLVANIA

    Mr. Thompson. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Good 
morning, everybody, and thank you to Chairman Mann and Ranking 
Member Costa for convening the first hearing of the 
Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry in the 119th 
Congress. And more importantly, thank you to our witnesses who 
have taken time out of your busy schedules to appear before us 
today. I look forward to hearing from each of you.
    The timing of this hearing is critical. Our producers are 
dealing with a historic high-pathogenic avian influenza 
outbreak; harmful state mandates like Proposition 12; and 
difficult market conditions, along with a slew of other issues. 
This hearing today is a great opportunity for us to learn from 
the experts in front of us about the best way to combat these 
problems. Over the last 3 years, I have had the privilege to 
travel with many of my colleagues, actually, to more than 40 
states and one Territory to learn about farmers and ranchers' 
top concerns. Given the size and diversity of the livestock 
industry, we need a full picture of on-the-ground conditions 
and an honest assessment of what is and isn't working to ensure 
we appropriately arm producers with the tools they need for 
success in the coming years.
    I am proud of the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 
2024 that we passed out of Committee on a bipartisan basis last 
year. We increased funding for the three-legged stool, included 
language on negotiating animal disease regionalization 
agreements, improved investment opportunities for livestock 
auction owners, doubled funding for MAP and FMD programs, and 
provided a fix for Proposition 12, just to name a few. 
Unfortunately, for numerous reasons outside of my control, we 
weren't able to get that bill across the finish line, and 
America's producers are the ones paying the prices.
    We cannot let this year be a repeat of the last. I look 
forward to hearing from you all today about the issues you are 
facing and the provisions you would like to see included in a 
new farm bill.
    I appreciate the partnership of Chairman Mann and Ranking 
Member Costa, and of course Ranking Member Craig, as we 
continue to explore potential solutions to the issues that will 
surely be highlighted in today's discussion.
    Once again, thank you all for being here to testify, and 
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Thompson follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Glenn Thompson, a Representative in Congress 
                           from Pennsylvania
    Good morning, and thank you to Chairman Mann and Ranking Member 
Costa for convening the first hearing of the Subcommittee on Livestock, 
Dairy, and Poultry in the 119th Congress. And more importantly, thank 
you to our witnesses who have taken time out of your busy schedules to 
appear before us today--I look forward to hearing from each of you.
    The timing of this hearing is critical. Our producers are dealing 
with a historic high-path avian influenza outbreak; harmful state 
mandates like Proposition 12; and difficult market conditions, among a 
slew of other issues. This hearing today is a great opportunity for us 
to learn from the experts in front of us about the best way to combat 
these problems. Over the last three years, I've had the privilege to 
travel to more than 40 states and one Territory to learn about farmers 
and ranchers' top concerns. Given the size and diversity of the 
livestock industry, we need a full picture of on-the-ground conditions 
and an honest assessment of what is and isn't working to ensure we 
appropriately arm producers with the tools they need for success in the 
coming years.
    I am proud of the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2024 
that we passed out of Committee on a bipartisan basis last year. We 
increased funding for the three-legged stool, included language on 
negotiating animal disease regionalization agreements, improved 
investment opportunities for livestock auction owners, doubled funding 
for the MAP and FMD programs, and provided a fix for Proposition 12, 
just to name a few. Unfortunately, for numerous reasons outside of my 
control, we weren't able to get that bill across the finish line, and 
America's producers are the ones paying the prices.
    We cannot let this year be a repeat of the last. I look forward to 
hearing from you all today about the issues you're facing and the 
provisions you'd like to see included in a new Farm Bill.
    I appreciate the partnership of Chairman Mann and Ranking Member 
Costa--and of course Ranking Member Craig--as we continue to explore 
potential solutions to the issues that will surely be highlighted in 
today's discussion.
    Thank you, and I yield back.

    The Chairman. Thank you, Chairman Thompson.
    Next, I will recognize Ranking Member Craig for any opening 
comments she would like to make.

  OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ANGIE CRAIG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
                    CONGRESS FROM MINNESOTA

    Ms. Craig. Good morning, and thank you so much, Mr. 
Chairman. Thank you to Ranking Member Costa for convening this 
hearing, and most importantly, as Chairman Thompson said, thank 
you so much to the witnesses.
    As spring approaches, I know this is a very busy season for 
all of you, and I appreciate you coming to Washington, 
particularly during such a critical time to give us an update.
    I am concerned about the state of the industry. We have 
animal disease outbreaks, high input costs, a holdup of USDA 
cost-share payments, and a destabilized trade environment. None 
of these things provide certainty for producers, or make life 
more affordable for American families.
    Some of this uncertainty could be reduced by a bipartisan 
farm bill, one that strengthens our animal disease preparedness 
by investing in the research and infrastructure needed to 
effectively combat animal disease outbreaks. We talked about 
the many reasons we need a bipartisan farm bill last month in 
our full Committee hearing, so I won't belabor the point. But I 
hope that we can navigate through partisan reconciliation bill 
to achieve a bipartisan farm bill this year. Producers need it.
    The livestock and poultry industry faces some very serious 
issues with avian influenza. While I appreciate USDA has given 
some thought to a new plan to fight the spread in poultry, 
questions remain. How will it impact trade? Does USDA have the 
staff to implement this strategy? I am looking forward to 
hearing from our panelists today about how USDA's approach to 
high-path will impact their operations, as well as their 
suggestions for how Congress can work with the Trump 
Administration to better combat this disease.
    Finally, farmers are worried that trade fights and 
continued consolidation will hurt their bottom line. The last 
time this Administration started a similar trade war, it cost 
U.S. farmers nearly $30 billion, around $1 billion of which was 
in part due to China launching retaliatory tariffs on U.S. 
pork, and we know that those producers were not made whole.
    At a time where family farms across this country are 
disappearing, policy makers should be focused on facilitating 
access to reliable markets and making the food you produce more 
affordable for hardworking American families. The tariffs on 
our largest trading partners that went into effect today are 
going to be devastating to this industry and to family 
paychecks across our nation.
    Thank you again for being here, and to the Livestock, 
Dairy, and Poultry Subcommittee for hosting this hearing. And 
with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Craig follows:]

 Prepared Statement of Hon. Angie Craig, a Representative in Congress 
                             from Minnesota
    Good morning. I want to thank Chairman Mann and Ranking Member 
Costa for convening this hearing. I also want to thank the witnesses 
for being here. As spring approaches, I know this is a busy season for 
you, and I appreciate you coming to Washington during such a critical 
time to update us.
    I am concerned about the state of the industry. We have animal 
disease outbreaks, high input costs, a hold up of USDA cost-share 
payments and a destabilized trade environment. None of these things 
provide certainty for producers or make life more affordable for 
American families.
    Some of this uncertainty could be reduced by a bipartisan farm 
bill. One that strengthens our animal disease preparedness by investing 
in the research and infrastructure needed to effectively combat animal 
disease outbreaks.
    We talked about the many reasons we need a bipartisan farm bill 
last month in our full Committee hearing, so I won't belabor the point, 
but I hope we can navigate through a partisan reconciliation bill to 
achieve a bipartisan farm bill this year. Producers need it.
    The livestock and poultry industry faces some very serious issues 
with avian influenza. While I appreciate USDA has given some thought to 
a new plan to fight the spread in poultry, questions remain. How will 
it impact trade? Does USDA have the staff to implement this strategy? 
I'm looking forward to hearing from our panelists today about how this 
USDA's approach to high-path will impact their operations as well as 
their suggestions for how Congress can work with the Trump 
administration to better combat this disease.
    Finally, farmers are worried that trade fights and continued 
consolidation will hurt their bottom line. The last time this 
Administration started a similar trade war, it cost U.S. farmers nearly 
$30 billion, around $1 billion of which was in part due to China 
launching retaliatory tariffs on U.S. pork.
    At a time when family farms across the country are disappearing, 
policymakers should be focused on facilitating access to reliable 
markets and making the food you produce more affordable for hardworking 
families. The tariffs on our largest trading partners that went into 
effect today are going to be devastating to you and to family paychecks 
across our nation.
    Thank you again for being here and to the Livestock, Dairy, and 
Poultry Subcommittee for hosting this hearing. I yield back.

    The Chairman. The chair would request that other Members 
submit their opening statements for the record so the witnesses 
may begin their testimony to ensure that there is ample time 
for questions.
    To introduce our first witness today, I am pleased to yield 
to the full Committee's Ranking Member, Ms. Craig.
    Ms. Craig. Well, thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. It is 
indeed my honor to introduce my friend and my constituent, Mr. 
John Zimmerman, who comes from the top turkey producing state 
in the country--let me just repeat that for my friends from 
Wisconsin--the top turkey producing state in the country, my 
State of Minnesota. He just finished a term as the Chairman of 
the National Turkey Federation, and prior to that, he was the 
President of Minnesota Turkey Growers. Finally, he is a member 
of my Farmer Advisory Council back home in Minnesota. As a 
second-generation Minnesota turkey farmer, raising about 
100,000 turkeys every year, John is a veteran of the industry. 
I look forward to hearing your testimony and continuing to work 
together.
    And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back and welcome Mr. 
Zimmerman.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    To introduce our second witness today, I am pleased to 
yield to our colleague, the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. 
Finstad.
    Mr. Finstad. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Minnesota's First Congressional District is a pork 
powerhouse district. We have some counties that have more pigs 
than people, and with that, it is an honor to introduce my 
friend, Lori Stevermer, who is the President of the National 
Pork Producers Council. Lori and her husband, Dale, raise pigs 
and crops near Easton, Minnesota, and have three adult 
children: Brett and his wife, Tressa, Adam, and Beth. Moreover, 
Lori is the customer success manager for All Tech's U.S. pork 
business, having spent her time in sales and marketing in the 
animal nutrition business for over 30 years. Her previous 
experience includes 9 years on the executive board of the 
Minnesota Pork Producers Association, including 2 years as 
President, and a member of various state and national 
committees. Lori represents the best of southern Minnesota, and 
is a tremendous advocate for the swine industry at the local, 
state, and national levels, and we thank her for being here 
today.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    The Chairman. I will now yield to our Subcommittee's 
Ranking Member, Mr. Costa, to introduce two of our witnesses.
    Mr. Costa. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and it is my 
honor and privilege to introduce Mike West, who up until the 
reapportionment in 2020 was a constituent of mine, but still a 
neighbor and a friend from Elmar, California. He is Chairman of 
the United Egg Producers and President of J.S. West and 
Company, Inc. Their headquarters is in Modesto, but they have 
been a large part of California's agricultural incredible 
diversity and productivity. It is a family-owned business, over 
100 years as Mike will proudly tell you that they have been a 
producer of eggs and other products, and they certainly know 
what they are doing. And he and I had a conversation a week or 
so ago about the challenges they have been facing with the 
avian flu, and he has got some very good information that he 
wants to share with us. So, I am looking forward to his 
testimony.
    And following that, I also have the privilege to thank 
Walter Schweitzer for joining us as well. You are a third 
generation Montana farmer, as I understand it, who raises 
registered black Angus cattle, hay and grain, and consults on 
national agricultural trade, and currently serves as the 
Montana Farmers Union President, and we are very pleased that 
you are here to give us an idea of the challenges you are 
facing in Montana, and we look forward to your testimony.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    I will now yield to the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Baird, 
to introduce our next witness.
    Mr. Baird. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am pleased to 
introduce a fellow Hoosier in Mr. Larry Hopkins, who currently 
serves as the Region III Director on the Executive Board of the 
American Sheep Industry Association, and that covers Indiana, 
Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin. But most 
importantly, he is a graduate of Purdue University.
    In addition to his board seat, he is an ASI Chair of the 
Legislative Actions Council. Larry and his family own and 
operate a purebred sheep and wool operation called Little Eagle 
Valley Farm in Westfield, Indiana. He is also a partner in the 
family dairy farm, which is managed by his brother. Larry has 
held multiple positions with the Indiana Sheep Association and 
the Indiana Farm Bureau, and he received the Shepherd of the 
Year award, and has served on the Indiana Sheep and Wool 
Council, which oversees the state check-off program.
    So, Larry, thank you for your dedication to the sheep 
industry, and we are excited to have you here today to testify.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you, and last, but certainly not least, 
Mr. Troy Sander. I get the pleasure of introducing the past 
Chairman of the Live Cattle Marketing Committee for the 
National Cattlemen's Beef Association. Troy also serves as the 
Chief Operating Officer for Heritage Beef, a cattle feeding 
operation based in southwest Kansas, and its affiliated 
feedyard, Neosha Valley Feeders, located in Parsons, Kansas, 
right in the heart of the Big First District.
    Troy has decades of experience in all aspects of the cattle 
feeding industry, including procurement, marketing strategies, 
financial and risk management, and regulatory oversight. 
Growing up, he worked alongside his father in Kansas feedyards 
and helped operate their custom farming and harvesting 
business. He has held several roles with NCBA and served in 
positions for the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, CFTC, and Kansas 
Livestock Association.
    Troy and his wife have been married for more than 30 years, 
and are proud parents of four sons and seven grandchildren.
    Troy, thank you for being here today to share your 
expertise. We look forward to hearing from you.
    Thank you to all of the witnesses for joining us today. We 
will now proceed with your testimony. You will each have 5 
minutes. The timer in front of you will count down to 0, at 
which point your time has expired and I will make a subtle 
little tap with the gavel.
    So, first off we have Mr. Zimmerman. Please begin when you 
are ready.

          STATEMENT OF JOHN ZIMMERMAN, IMMEDIATE PAST 
      CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL TURKEY FEDERATION, NORTHFIELD, MN

    Mr. Zimmerman. Good morning, Chairman Mann, Ranking Member 
Costa, and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the 
opportunity to share the turkey industry's perspective today.
    This morning, I would like to highlight the animal disease 
portion of the written testimony I have submitted for the 
record.
    For more than a year, the turkey industry has been dealing 
with the negative impacts of highly-pathogenic avian influenza, 
as well as another highly consequential respiratory virus, 
avian Metapneumovirus, which has impacted between 60 and 80 
percent of turkey flocks nationwide. In Minnesota alone, 127 
cases of HPAI in commercial turkeys have led to the loss of 
more than 6.6 million birds, and while HPAI is 100 percent 
lethal to birds exposed to the virus long enough, aMPV is more 
subtle but equally impactful, due to its ability to 
significantly reduce egg sets of breeder stocks that produce 
the next generation of turkeys, and cause severe, prolonged 
mortality in commercial flocks.
    Together, these two respiratory viruses have exponentially 
increased volatility, supply shortages, and market uncertainty. 
This one-two punch has caused many farmers to quit raising 
turkeys, with many on the brink of shutting down. Banks are 
very concerned about farms' financial health, and some farmers 
struggle to obtain credit after losing 30 to 50 percent of 
their flocks to aMPV.
    HPAI is a terrible disease, but with aMPV, there is no 
indemnity or assistance. So, I would urge the Committee to make 
aMPV an eligible disease under USDA's Livestock Indemnity 
Program. This would assist growers in mitigating economic loss, 
and will go a long way to assist poultry producers who are 
being hit hard to stay on their farms, producing the most 
abundant food supply in the world.
    On a more positive note, the first imported aMPV modified 
live vaccine doses reached Minnesota farms earlier this month, 
with more on the way to assist farmers nationwide. I want to 
personally thank Members of this Subcommittee for leading the 
charge in supporting the importation of this much-needed 
modified live vaccine for aMPV.
    I would also like to thank USDA for their efforts in 
getting this across the finish line; however, I think it is 
important to acknowledge the industry's incredible frustrations 
with USDA's review process of an imported modified live 
vaccine. I appreciate the importance of ensuring the safety of 
a vaccine, and that the aMPV vaccine was the first of its kind 
to ever be approved. However, when an entire industry is at 
significant risk, it should take a matter of months, not more 
than a year, for a widely used and well-established global 
vaccine to be imported and available for use. I would encourage 
the Committee to use your experience in evaluating USDA's 
review process to ensure a faster, more efficient response to 
future animal disease outbreaks.
    Unfortunately, aMPV is only half the battle. Time is of the 
essence on HPAI. A national strategy targeting all potential 
hosts of H5 influenza is lacking, allowing the virus to spread. 
The global poultry industry is in crisis, so pursuing a 
successful vaccination program that doesn't negatively impact 
trade as part of a stamp out strategy is the key to 
significantly reducing disease rates. NTF is appreciative and 
encouraged by the robust strategy announced last week by USDA 
to address HPAI for egg layers. These investments in 
biosecurity, farmer relief, vaccine research, and the 
considerations for trade outlined in the plan are important 
steps towards stabilizing the market. However, these methods 
must extend beyond egg laying operations to encompass the 
broader poultry sector, including the turkey industry. HPAI has 
devastated turkey producers, leading to significant flock 
losses, supply disruptions, and increased costs that directly 
impact consumers. A comprehensive response must recognize the 
unique needs of all poultry sectors, ensuring that all efforts 
include turkey growers.
    NTF supports research in finding an effective vaccine for 
HPAI, improving vaccine and diagnostic technology, while 
creating a vaccination plan for commercial poultry. As vaccine 
technology advances, there is growing interest in using HPAI 
vaccine to prevent disease spread and reduce losses as part of 
a stamping out strategy. As a parallel approach, NTF strongly 
encourages USDA to renegotiate with key trading partners to 
minimize the implications of vaccine deployment. If the U.S. 
fails to lead globally on implementing animal health solutions 
capable of preventing disease and death in commercial poultry, 
we will be at a significant business disadvantage. Empowering 
USDA to increase proactive engagement with trading partners and 
solidifying a new framework to reduce disease outbreaks impact 
on the global food supply is essential.
    So, in closing, as Congress writes a new farm bill, NTF 
urges the renewal and robust funding of animal disease 
programs, such as the three-legged stool, and the establishment 
of an HPAI strategic initiative to ensure the turkey industry 
has the tools necessary to combat future animal disease 
problems.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today, and I 
look forward to answering any questions you may have.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Zimmerman follows:]

Prepared Statement of John Zimmerman, Immediate Past Chairman, National 
                   Turkey Federation, Northfield, MN
    Good morning, Chairman Mann, Vice Chair Van Orden, and Members of 
the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to share the turkey 
industry's perspective today. My name is John Zimmerman, and I'm a 
second-generation turkey grower from Northfield, Minnesota. On my farm, 
we raise about 100,000 turkeys annually, producing about 4 million 
pounds of turkey meat, along with corn and soybeans. Raising turkeys is 
a family business--I grew up in the industry and took over from my 
father. It's hard work, but I love it.
    I also just finished serving as the Chairman of the National Turkey 
Federation (NTF), representing all segments of the U.S. turkey 
industry--from growers like me to processors, breeders and the allied 
companies that produce the goods and services we use to bring turkeys 
from the farm to tables in this country and around the world.
    While the turkey industry faces many challenges, my testimony will 
focus on the impacts of Highly-Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) as 
well as another highly consequential respiratory virus--avian 
Metapneumovirus (aMPV)--which has impacted between 60-80% of turkey 
flocks nationwide. As of February 27, 2025, 465 commercial turkey 
operations nationwide have tested positive for HPAI, resulting in the 
loss of more than 18.7 million turkeys. In Minnesota alone, 127 cases 
of HPAI in commercial turkeys have led to the loss of more than 6.6 
million birds. While HPAI is 100% lethal to birds exposed to the virus 
long enough, aMPV is more subtle but equally impactful due to its 
ability to significantly reduce egg sets of breeder stock that produce 
the next generation of turkeys and cause severe prolonged mortality in 
commercial flocks.
    As the previous Chairman of NTF and a grower, I cannot overstate 
the impact of these two viral animal diseases that have killed millions 
of turkeys nationwide. While HPAI grabs headlines for its effect on egg 
and milk prices, aMPV has also killed millions of turkeys. Together, 
these two respiratory viruses have exponentially increased volatility, 
supply shortages and market uncertainty.
    Back in Minnesota, this one-two punch has caused many farmers to 
quit raising turkeys, with several others on the brink of shutting 
down. Banks are very concerned about farms' financial health and some 
farmers struggle to obtain credit after losing 30-50 percent of their 
flocks to aMPV. I have personally had flocks of turkeys experience 30 
percent mortality in just a matter of days. HPAI is a terrible disease, 
but with aMPV there is no indemnity or assistance. It has been 
incredibly frustrating to suffer such extreme losses knowing that a 
safe and effective vaccine was available, just not to U.S. farmers. I 
have received calls from many other farmers who are frustrated and 
disheartened by their continued losses due to aMPV.
    On a more positive note, the first imported aMPV modified-live 
vaccine doses reached Minnesota farms this month, with more on the way 
to assist farmers nationwide. I want to personally thank Members of 
this Subcommittee for leading the charge in supporting the importation 
of the much needed modified-live vaccine for aMPV. As the industry 
continues to work through aMPV, we urge the Subcommittee to make aMPV 
an eligible disease under the USDA's Livestock Indemnity Program (LIP). 
This would assist growers in mitigating economic loss and it will go a 
long way to assist poultry producers, who are being hit hard, stay on 
their farms producing the most abundant food supply in the world.
    I also want to thank USDA, specifically those at the Center for 
Veterinary Biologics (CVB), for their efforts getting this across the 
finish line. We are hopeful this new tool will ensure many more turkeys 
make it to market and puts us on the path to controlling the virus. 
However, I also think it's important to acknowledge the industry's 
frustrations with USDA's review process of an imported modified-live 
vaccine. I appreciate the importance of ensuring the safety of a 
vaccine and that the aMPV vaccine was the first of its kind to be 
approved. However, when an entire industry is at significant risk it 
should take a matter of months--not a year--for a widely used and well-
established global vaccine to be imported and available for use. I 
would encourage the Committee to use your experience in evaluating 
USDA's review process to ensure a faster, more efficient response to 
future animal disease outbreaks. Unfortunately, we know that MPV will 
not be the last emerging animal disease U.S. producers will face, and 
preparedness is essential.
    Unfortunately, aMPV is only half the battle--time is of the essence 
on HPAI. A national strategy targeting all potential hosts of H5 
influenza is lacking, allowing the virus to spread. The global poultry 
industry is in crisis, so pursing a successful vaccination program that 
does not negatively impact trade as part of a stamp-out strategy, is 
the key to significantly reducing disease rates.
    NTF is appreciative and encouraged by the robust strategy announced 
last week by USDA to address HPAI for egg layers. The investments in 
biosecurity, farmer relief, vaccine research and the considerations for 
trade outlined in this plan are important steps toward stabilizing the 
market.
    However, these measures must extend beyond egg-laying operations to 
encompass the broader poultry sector, including the turkey industry. 
HPAI has devastated turkey producers, leading to significant flock 
losses, supply disruptions and increased costs that directly impact 
consumers. A comprehensive response must recognize the unique needs of 
all poultry sectors, ensuring that all efforts include turkey growers.
    NTF supports research on finding an effective vaccine for HPAI, 
improving vaccine and diagnostic technology while creating a 
vaccination plan for commercial poultry. As vaccine technology 
advances, there is growing interest in using a HPAI vaccine to prevent 
disease spread and reduce losses as part of a ``stamping out'' 
approach. As a parallel path, NTF strongly encourages USDA to 
renegotiate with key trading partners to minimize the implication of 
vaccine deployment.
    Empowering USDA to increase proactive engagement with trading 
partners and solidify a new framework to reduce disease outbreaks' 
impact on the global food supply is essential. The U.S. can lead the 
fight against a disease that has devastated the global poultry 
industry, but proactive engagement with trade partners is needed now. 
Science, global politics and disease resilience demand a new approach--
we cannot wait for this strain to fade. If the U.S. fails to lead 
globally on implementing animal health solutions capable of preventing 
disease and death in commercial poultry, we will be at a significant 
business disadvantage.
    NTF urges USDA to quickly expand the programs and resources 
announced last week to safeguard the health of U.S. turkey flocks and 
secure the stability of the entire poultry industry.
Interim Final Rule Linking Biosecurity Audits to Indemnity
    In late December, USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 
(APHIS) announced an interim final rule that would update the 
conditions for poultry facilities to receive indemnity and compensation 
for HPAI. APHIS will now require farmers like me to undergo an 
additional biosecurity audit before restocking their poultry after an 
HPAI detection or if placed within a buffer zone, and before receiving 
future indemnity payments. Biosecurity is currently the only tool 
available for the turkey industry to prevent the introduction of HPAI 
in our flocks, but there are still many instances in which the means of 
HPAI introduction is unknown. Even premises with the most stringent 
biosecurity programs have had HPAI detections in this outbreak, which 
is something I have seen in Minnesota, as the viral load in the wild 
bird population and environment is overwhelming.
    Many of the criteria included in the new biosecurity audit are 
duplicative of the National Poultry Improvement Plan (NPIP) Biosecurity 
Principles already executed on poultry farms, and some do not reduce 
the likelihood of virus introduction. USDA published the Interim Final 
Rule without adequate resources to immediately implement the audits. 
Farms across the United States have started using the new biosecurity 
audits before they restock their birds or if they are in the buffer 
zone. We have heard frustrations nationwide such as the audit being 
subjective and that auditors have not been formally trained to complete 
a fair audit. The limited number of auditors has not been able to keep 
up with the speed of commerce, presenting significant animal welfare 
concerns.
    USDA must recognize that a quick response is crucial to reducing 
the spread of the virus, and unfair indemnity changes could impact 
reporting and stamping out of the virus. If policies disincentivize 
reporting of HPAI incidences, there will be additional disease spread, 
directly opposing USDA's overall goals of virus elimination.
    I strongly urge that any indemnity policy linked to the new 
biosecurity audits be fair, advance animal health and not penalize 
turkey farmers in high-risk areas--especially when dairies testing 
positive for HPAI face minimal restrictions despite posing a 
significant risk to nearby poultry flocks.
Readiness
    Dealing with a large nationwide outbreak has put tremendous strain 
on APHIS, which remains significantly understaffed. The agency needs at 
least 150 full-time employees (FTEs) to return to normal strength and 
provide maximum assistance with all aspects of this outbreak. Rapid 
response is critical when dealing with a positive flock to minimize 
virus spread. Addressing the staffing shortage will ensure faster 
depopulation and disposal, reducing unnecessary flock mortality. We 
encourage Congress to provide the funding and flexibility that will 
allow APHIS to compete with the private sector and hire and train these 
desperately needed 150+ FTEs. It not only will accelerate the end of 
this outbreak; but it will strengthen effective rapid response 
capabilities for future outbreaks. In addition to providing APHIS with 
the necessary financial resources, Congress should empower the agency 
to pursue other creative solutions such as developing cooperative 
agreements to train state, or even industry employees and vets so they 
can be called upon during animal health emergencies. In addition, 
efforts should be made to incentivize veterinarians to enter Federal 
service.
Salmonella Framework
    Last year USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) 
published its proposed Salmonella Framework for Raw Poultry Products. 
The turkey industry has a long-standing commitment to enhancing the 
safety of turkey products across the entire supply chain. I know how 
seriously I take my role in ensuring the turkeys I raise can be used 
for safe, wholesome and nutritious products for consumers, and can 
assure you others do as well. Not only is the USDA proposal not legally 
sound, but it also contradicts multiple Federal court decisions on 
Salmonella in raw meat and poultry products. The proposed rule lacks a 
scientific basis and introduces a policy that is logistically 
unfeasible, financially burdensome for the industry, and likely to 
increase food costs, waste and threaten food security.
    NTF strongly agrees that new approaches to more effectively reduce 
foodborne illness should be explored. The Agency already has a 
mechanism proven to effectively reduce Salmonella. By setting clear 
targets developed using public health metrics, FSIS can more 
successfully positively impact public health by capitalizing on the 
achievements of current performance standards under the Agency's 
current authority and more rapidly elicit change. I am optimistic that 
USDA will recognize significant scientific and logistical challenges of 
the proposed rule, and that FSIS will instead move forward with a 
science-based policy aimed at improving public health.
2025 Farm Bill
    The current HPAI outbreak is a prime example of how important the 
farm bill is to our industry and the animal agriculture community. 
Foreign animal diseases can devastate the agricultural sector, posing 
long-term threats to the economic viability of U.S. livestock and 
poultry production. The new farm bill must address these animal health 
risks while strengthening U.S. animal agriculture's long-term 
competitiveness in the global market, ensuring a safe, wholesome, and 
affordable food supply produced sustainably. The 2018 Farm Bill 
established a three-tiered animal disease program with mandatory 
funding to ensure sufficient development and timely deployment of all 
measures necessary to prevent, identify and mitigate the potential 
catastrophic impacts that an animal disease outbreak would have on our 
country's food security, export markets and overall economic stability.
    As Congress writes a new farm bill, NTF urges the renewal and 
robust funding of these programs. In addition, we strongly believe, due 
to the magnitude of the current situation, that our Strategic 
Initiative for HPAI needs to be expressly defined and funded to give it 
the attention it needs. In conjunction with this Strategic Initiative, 
it is imperative that we do not backpedal on our obligations to animal 
agriculture, so the full funding of the National Animal Disease 
Preparedness and Response Program (NADPrep), and the National Animal 
Health Monitoring System (NAHMS) Laboratory Network, which is comprised 
of more than 60 Federal, state and university veterinary diagnostic 
labs go hand in hand. We are extremely grateful for the support 
Congress has shown to our industry through this challenging HPAI 
outbreak. We look forward to continuing our work together on the 
upcoming farm bill.
    In conclusion, the turkey industry faces numerous challenges, with 
the most urgent threat directly at our doorstep. Without a new approach 
to these critical diseases, we risk facing the same crisis next year--
more dead birds, more trade restrictions and continued frustration over 
the lack of progress.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to testify and share the 
perspective of the U.S. turkey industry.

    The Chairman. Thank you very much for that testimony.
    Up next, Ms. Stevermer, please begin when you are ready.

STATEMENT OF LORI STEVERMER, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL PORK PRODUCERS 
                      COUNCIL, EASTON, MN

    Ms. Stevermer. Well, good morning Chairman Mann, Ranking 
Member Costa, and Members of the Subcommittee. I am Lori 
Stevermer, a third-generation pork producer from Easton, 
Minnesota, and President of the National Pork Producers 
Council.
    In thinking about the state of the livestock industry, let 
me start by saying that for several years, America's 60,000+ 
pork producers have faced difficult times. While farmers are 
ever optimistic about the future, we are emerging from the 
worst period of losses in our industry's history, averaging $30 
per head from late 2022 through early 2024. Since then, some 
production costs have declined and hog prices have improved, 
but many farmers have not recovered financially.
    To provide certainty, we need to continue farming. American 
agriculture needs a 5 year farm bill in which pork producers 
have three priorities. First, we must fix the problems caused 
by California's Proposition 12, which has increased farmers' 
operating costs, caused business uncertainty, and raised pork 
prices at the grocery store. As you know, this law reaches far 
beyond California, to include farmers in other states and even 
other countries. The outcomes of Prop 12 defy common sense, and 
create a patchwork of differing state regulations if Congress 
doesn't act. Prop 12, opposed by both President Trump and 
President Biden, is harming small and medium family farmers the 
most. We have followed the processes in place to address this 
issue, and we are before you because the Supreme Court has said 
it is a matter for Congress to take up.
    Second, we need to ensure that we protect livestock from 
foreign animal diseases, such as African swine fever, by 
funding USDA programs for detection, prevention, and rapid 
response to outbreaks, which we have come to call the three-
legged stool of animal health. This must include a strong 
laboratory network for surveillance and a stockpile of vaccines 
to quickly respond to diseases.
    Third, we must promote our exports by funding the Foreign 
Market Development Program and the Market Access Program. This 
is critical to our ability to produce wholesome, nutritious 
pork and serve our communities and employees.
    Moreover, we need to think hard about how policies and 
regulations on market reporting, labor, and competition impact 
family farms across America, not just now, but for future 
generations.
    I hope this Committee will consider a 5 year 
reauthorization of the Livestock Mandatory Reporting Program. 
It ensures that reliable and accurate information influencing 
critical business decisions is available to farmers like 
myself, and others at this table.
    Employment remains a top issue I hear from our producers. 
Farms across the country desperately need employees. The H-2A 
Visa Program must be expanded to include year-round foreign-
born workers. Given our ongoing challenges, farmers need 
assurances we won't be subjected to regulations that restrict 
our ability to buy and sell our animals. For that reason, we 
urge Congress and the Administration to defund and withdraw the 
Packers and Stockyards Rules.
    Finally, let me say a few words about international trade. 
Without trade to our customers beyond our borders, we see and 
feel deep substantial losses. International trade provides us 
with $66 per pig marketed. Without those markets for the wide 
range of products we produce, many of us simply would not be 
able to continue to farm.
    U.S. pork producers face tariff and non-tariff barriers to 
our products in many countries, including China and the EU. 
Opening new and expanding existing markets is paramount and 
allows many farms to stay afloat. The best way to do this is 
through comprehensive trade agreements, eliminating those 
tariff and non-tariff barriers. Just how important are those 
agreements? U.S. pork exports, for example, have increased over 
2,000 percent in value since 1989, the year the U.S. 
implemented its agreement with Canada. In fact, last year the 
U.S. exported over 3 million metric tons, valued at nearly 
$8.63 billion, which set a new record. We now export more pork 
to the 20 countries where we have a comprehensive trade 
agreement than to the 80 other plus nations which we ship pork.
    It is also important to realize there are a variety of 
inputs we must bring in from China, including amino acids and 
trace minerals. We need to keep this in mind as Congress and 
the Administration continue conversations on the future of our 
relationship with China.
    We are proud of the work we do and appreciate the 
opportunity to help feed American families, and to present our 
perspective on the livestock industry. Thank you for the 
opportunity to testify before you today.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Stevermer follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Lori Stevermer, President, National Pork 
                     Producers Council, Easton, MN
Introduction
    The National Pork Producers Council (NPPC), representing 42 
affiliated state associations, works to ensure the U.S. pork industry 
remains a consistent and responsible supplier of high-quality pork and 
pork products to domestic and international markets. Through public 
policy outreach, NPPC supports reasonable legislation and regulations, 
develops revenue and market opportunities, and protects the livelihoods 
of more than 60,000 pork producers across America.
    The U.S. pork industry serves as a major contributor to both the 
agricultural and overall U.S. economy while providing a range of 
products that are both a staple of daily meals and the centerpiece of 
family celebrations. In 2023, U.S. pork producers marketed more than 
149 million hogs valued at over $27 billion, while supporting more than 
573,000 U.S. jobs and supplying consumers with nutritional products 
that are raised safely and humanely. The U.S. is also a global supplier 
of pork, with exports accounting for nearly \1/4\ of annual pork 
production and supporting more than 140,000 U.S. jobs.
    To produce those hogs, pork producers used roughly 1.7 billion 
bushels of corn and the soybean meal from 462 million bushels of 
soybeans in 2023. They also used roughly 40 billion pounds of other 
feed ingredients, including distillers dried grains with solubles 
(DDGS), a major byproduct of corn ethanol production.
    The successes in our industry are particularly impressive given the 
challenges our farmers face. Pork producers are striving, throughout 
ongoing difficult times, to ensure safe and nutritious food reaches 
American tables, and we do so amid market access constraints, 
employment shortages, and looming threats of foreign animal diseases.
    This remains a very challenging time for the U.S. pork industry. 
From September 2022 to March 2024, pork producers lost an average of 
nearly $30 on each hog sold, according to estimates from Iowa State 
University. These substantial economic impacts have been widely felt. 
Since then, some production costs have declined, and hog prices have 
shown some improvement, but many farms have not yet recovered 
financially from the worst period of losses in the pork industry's 
history. This continues to affect the pork industry and would lead to 
greater consolidation if economic realities force producers to exit the 
industry.
    On top of concerns about strained markets and profitability, pork 
producers are experiencing impacts from state regulation in California 
that has created nonsensical outcomes. NPPC led a broad and deep 
coalition across agriculture that challenged the California regulation, 
known as Proposition 12, in the Federal courts. The U.S. Supreme Court, 
in declining to decide in our favor, pointed pork producers to seek 
redress in Congress, and producers are actively engaged to educate 
Members on the critical nature of this issue. The implications of the 
California regulation go far beyond the farmgate of pork producers and 
open a Pandora's box of regulations, fracturing our national market. 
Meeting arbitrary requirements of the California regulation and 
similar--yet conflicting--regulations already in the works in other 
states, means higher costs and fewer choices for consumers across the 
country, as well as immediate harm to agriculture and farm families. We 
stand with farmers and consumers across the country, grateful to have 
the support of both President Trump's and former President Biden's 
Administrations in clearly and decisively opposing the patchwork of 
arbitrary farming over-regulation, like Proposition 12. We will 
continue to work to sustain the broad and bipartisan support--from 
coast to coast, both from within and from outside of the agricultural 
sector--to provide a commonsense resolution. We look forward to working 
constructively to enact a reasonable solution in the reauthorization of 
the long-delayed 2018 Farm Bill.
    NPPC also looks forward to continuing work with this Committee in 
the farm bill reauthorization to ensure there is appropriate, adequate, 
and vital funding to ensure animal health across species. The growing 
threat of foreign animal disease is of particular concern, and farmers 
need tools to prevent and rapidly respond to an outbreak.
    We provide more detailed information about these and other critical 
topics and issues below.
California Proposition 12: A Concern For Anyone Who Eats
    California Proposition 12, opposed by both Presidents Trump and 
Biden, is harming family farmers and consumers across the country by 
forcing pork producers to comply with one state's arbitrary production 
standards that limit market access, induce consolidation, and leave 
consumers with a higher price for pork.
    Developed without input from pork producers, veterinarians, or 
experts in animal welfare or food safety, Proposition 12 prohibits the 
sale of uncooked whole pork meat not produced to the law's arbitrary 
housing dimensions. Compliance requires many producers to completely 
change how they raise their pigs. The regulation stands as a shining 
example of inexplicable rule-setting, understandable only in context of 
the ongoing efforts by the rule's proponents to limit availability and 
consumption of animal protein for Americans.
    One example of the regulation's folly is that a typical package of 
uncooked bacon--a beloved product purchased and enjoyed by millions of 
Americans every week--is, under the California rule, illegal to be sold 
in California if it comes from a pig raised on any farm across the 
nation that does not follow California's arbitrary, unscientific 
regulations. Violations risk criminal penalties. However, if that same 
bacon from that same farm and that same pig is, first cooked and 
packaged prior to sale (such as is seen in a typical package of 
microwave bacon), the bacon is then deemed legal in California.
    Again--and to underscore--farmers across America are impacted by 
this arbitrary approach that regulates the same cuts of pork that come 
from the same farm and from the same pig. It defies all common sense. 
Then, to ensure compliance, those pork producers across the country are 
subject to on-farm visits by California regulators--and must pay for 
those visits, no matter the size, scope, or setting of the farm.
    This sets a concerning precedent that allows one large state to 
effectively regulate agriculture and farming in the other states 
thousands of miles away, an outcome with broad implications for 
interstate commerce. Secretary of Agriculture, Brooke Rollins, has 
voiced an immediate understanding of the negative impacts--not just on 
farming, but also on the cost of food, a top concern of many Americans. 
During her confirmation hearing, Rollins committed to working with 
Congress to address the problems caused by Prop. 12, saying it ``. . . 
is not just affecting California. It's affecting multitudes of other 
states, multitudes of other parts of the ag community, including our 
hog family farms.'' Her predecessor, former Secretary of Agriculture 
Tom Vilsack had reached the same conclusions in urging Congress to act, 
stating, ``If we don't take this issue [Proposition 12] seriously, 
we're going to have chaos in the marketplace.''
    Created through an arbitrary state referendum in 2018, this extreme 
over-regulation does not equate to better health or welfare for pigs. 
In fact, the American Veterinary Medical Association wrote to this 
Committee, ``The arbitrary housing requirements in Prop 12 do not 
objectively improve animal welfare and may unintentionally cause 
harm.''
    Constructing compliant barns costs producers 40-43% more than 
widely accepted gestation stalls and 22-25% more than a conventional 
method of ``group'' housing with the same number of sows. While some 
large farms have access to capital to amortize and absorb the cost 
burden, small farmers with limited access to capital cannot. Moreover, 
the farms that undertake the efforts to comply experience losses in 
productivity, which exacerbate the challenges created by the costs 
associated with increasing square footage to meet the arbitrary 
California rule. The cost and production disadvantages of Proposition 
12 are clear--and dangerous.
    The burden extends to consumers and trading partners as well. A 
2024 report by economists with USDA's Office of the Chief Economist 
found that after Proposition 12 was implemented, prices for covered 
pork products in California increased 20% on average, with pork loins 
increasing as much as 41%. This harms not only lower-income households 
but also all families struggling with inflation and increasing food 
costs. The California standard applies to any farm with a desire to 
sell products in the state, including from neighboring countries. A 
state-based regulation with a clear international reach such as this, 
created outside of normal and customary international negotiation and 
agreement, puts all of American agriculture in a vulnerable position, 
as it provides the pathway for any nation to impose its own production 
standards. The implications are broad particularly as it relates to the 
Import-Export Clause of the United States Constitution.
    We are grateful House Agriculture Committee Chairman Thompson 
addressed Proposition 12 through Sec. 12007 of the Farm, Food, and 
National Security Act of 2024 and for Secretary Rollins' commitment to 
working with this Committee on the issue. The Supreme Court was clear: 
Congress must act to address this issue for agriculture. We cannot 
continue to have states set arbitrary standards on production in other 
states, and we look forward to assisting in your efforts to address 
this issue.
Foreign Animal Disease (FAD) Prevention
    Pork producers are facing an increasing threat from foreign animal 
diseases (FADs) such as African swine fever (ASF). To combat this, U.S. 
farmers collaborate with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) 
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), state animal health 
officials, and other stakeholders. Together, they work to ensure early 
detection, prevention, and rapid response tools are available to 
address any outbreak. This includes a strong laboratory network for 
surveillance and a stockpile of vaccines to quickly respond to high-
consequence diseases. If an FAD, like foot-and-mouth disease (FMD), 
were to be detected in the U.S., it would devastate not only pork 
producers but also cattle, sheep, and feed grain producers. It would 
lead to significant job losses due to disruptions in domestic 
production and the loss of export markets.
    The 2018 Farm Bill funded Animal Disease Prevention and Management 
actions to address FAD risks, and NPPC urges continued funding for 
these critically important programs, specifically:

   National Animal Vaccine and Veterinary Countermeasures Bank 
        (NAVVCB): Established in the 2018 Farm Bill, this U.S.-only 
        vaccine bank allows USDA to stockpile animal vaccines, 
        diagnostic test kits, and related products for rapid response 
        in the event of an outbreak of FMD or other high-impact FAD. It 
        is imperative the NAVVCB is well funded in the event that 
        vaccines for other high-consequence FADs, such as ASF, become 
        viable.

   National Animal Health Laboratory Network (NAHLN): The NAHLN 
        is a network of over 60 laboratories that collaborates with the 
        National Veterinary Services Laboratories (NVSL) on disease 
        monitoring. Should an FAD strike, determining the extent of the 
        outbreak as rapidly as possible plays a key role in responding 
        to a disease and limiting the impact on producers. The 
        laboratory capacity of the NAHLN is critical to ensuring the 
        United States can rapidly and effectively respond to an 
        outbreak. Enhancing animal health diagnostic testing for both 
        endemic and high-consequence pathogens in the nation's 
        livestock and poultry is vital to protecting animal health, 
        public health, and the nation's food supply.

   National Animal Disease Preparedness and Response Program 
        (NADPRP): This program allows APHIS to collaborate with animal 
        health partners nationwide to implement high-value projects 
        that enhance prevention, preparedness, detection, and response 
        to the most damaging and emerging FADs that threaten U.S. 
        agriculture. Cooperative or interagency agreements between 
        APHIS and states, universities, livestock producer 
        organizations, tribal organizations, land-grant universities, 
        and other eligible entities are vital to addressing the risk of 
        animal pests and diseases.

   National Veterinary Stockpile (NVS): The NVS provides 
        veterinary countermeasures (animal vaccines, antivirals, or 
        therapeutic products, supplies, equipment, personal protective 
        equipment, and response support services) that states, tribes, 
        and territories need to respond to animal disease outbreaks. 
        Depopulation is a key component of any FAD control effort, and 
        adequate euthanasia equipment is critical to its success. Also 
        essential is sampling and vaccination equipment. The NVS should 
        be well-supplied to step in if a large-scale outbreak requires 
        resources beyond what states, tribes, or territories may have.

    Several other measures to prevent foreign animal diseases from 
entering the United States have been enormously successful, and farmers 
would benefit from them being continued, if not expanded.

   The Feral Swine Eradication and Control Pilot Program (FSCP) 
        is a joint effort between USDA's Natural Resources Conservation 
        Service and APHIS. Originally included in the 2018 Farm Bill, 
        FSCP addresses the threat feral swine pose on agriculture, 
        ecosystems, and animal health. Given feral swine's role in the 
        worldwide ASF pandemic, funding for this program should be 
        increased to reduce the risk of the potential spread of FADs, 
        including ASF, in the United States.

   The Agricultural Quarantine and Inspection (AQI) Services 
        User Fees Program, jointly administered by USDA and U.S. 
        Customs and Border Protection, is crucial to keeping invasive 
        plant and animal pests and diseases out of the United States. 
        This critical program is funded through user fees collected by 
        APHIS from international travelers and commercial traffic.

      Unfortunately, APHIS lost its 30 year authority to collect a 
        surcharge through certain fees because of a District of 
        Columbia Circuit Court ruling. The loss of this longstanding 
        authority to collect reserve funds destabilizes AQI funding and 
        threatens the effectiveness of its programs. NPPC urges 
        Congress to restore this fundamental user fee authority to 
        APHIS.
      The Foundation for Food & Agriculture Research (FFAR) was 
        established in the 2014 Farm Bill to create public-private 
        partnerships for agriculture research. The model supports 
        animal and crop systems by increasing productivity, combating 
        pests and diseases, supporting animal welfare, and safeguarding 
        farmers and ranchers' livelihoods. FFAR has partnered with the 
        swine industry on three programs over the last few years, 
        focusing on wean-to-harvest biosecurity research, Japanese 
        encephalitis virus research, and H5N1 risk to swine research.
Reliance on China for Certain Vitamins and Nutrients
    Vitamins are essential nutrients required by swine to optimize 
health, productivity, and well-being. The U.S. pork industry is 
dependent on vitamins manufactured in China because production is 
limited, and in some cases, there are no other country of origin 
options to meet industry volume demands. Vitamins represent a 
significant proportion of total feed ingredient imports, and some 
vitamins (biotin, folic acid, pyridoxine, thiamin, and B12) 
are almost exclusively manufactured in China. With the exception of 
vitamin A, E, and niacin, 80 to 100% of all other vitamins must be 
imported from China. For biotin, folic acid, and vitamin 
B12, there are no other sources beyond China to acquire 
these vitamins.
Livestock Marketing and Transparency
    Livestock Mandatory Reporting (LMR) remains a critical issue for 
pork producers today, and we cannot allow this vital program to lapse. 
Market Reporting and meaningful price discovery are critical to pork 
producers' ability to accurately market their livestock. While we 
consider the declaration of mandatory price reporting an essential 
service, improving the transparency and usefulness of reported 
information for producers is crucial. Over the past 10 years, changes 
in the marketing of hogs have prompted our industry to identify several 
priorities and necessary improvements to include in the next 
reauthorization of LMR. This includes adding information, such as the 
average daily non-carcass merit premium paid for hogs, to the reporting 
requirements--which will improve the transparency and utility of 
existing reports while removing requirements that are no longer used by 
the pork industry.
    While NPPC believes meaningful changes to price reporting would 
give pork producers greater transparency in marketing their livestock, 
we are also concerned about any efforts that would stifle innovation, 
reduce competition, and introduce significant legal and regulatory 
uncertainty. In January 2020, USDA proposed a rule outlining criteria 
to determine if a preference or advantage given to a producer can be 
justified based on market conditions and reasonable business decisions. 
USDA also made clear in the rule that to prevail in legal challenges 
under the Packers and Stockyards Act (PSA), a plaintiff must show a 
preference or advantage that is likely to harm competition in the 
marketplace. The rule was finalized in December 2020 and took effect 
January 11, 2021.
    Despite the previous rule satisfying USDA's Congressional mandate 
from the 2008 Farm Bill, USDA announced in the summer of 2021 that it 
would again be proposing a series of new rules under the PSA. The rules 
promulgated under the Biden Administration were extremely vague and 
overly broad, creating uncertainty, confusion, and the potential for 
needless litigation in the pork industry--without addressing any 
specific existing issue. NPPC supports Congressional action to ensure 
producers have stability in the marketplace by preserving hard-fought 
and long-standing business arrangements as soon as possible.
Expanding Market Access
    Trade is vital to America's pork producers, who annually export 
about \1/4\ of total production to more than 100 countries. Those 
exports create more than $66 in value from each hog marketed, 
supporting more than 140,000 American jobs, and contributing more than 
$15.7 billion to the U.S. economy, according to economists with Iowa 
State University and NPPC.
    Despite numerous challenges, a strong U.S. dollar, ongoing supply 
chain issues, and trade retaliation from some of its top foreign 
markets, the U.S. pork industry continues to export a significant 
amount of pork. In fact, last year exports of pork and variety meats 
totaled over 3 million metric tons valued at nearly $8.63 billion, 
representing a 4% increase in volume and a 6% increase in value 
compared to 2023 and setting a new record in both categories. 
Additionally, the United States has regained its position as the top 
exporter of pork in the world, accounting for more than 31% of global 
exports.
    The primary cause for U.S. pork export growth over the past 2 
decades has been trade initiatives--whether free trade agreements 
(FTAs), less-formal trade and investment framework agreements, or one-
off market access deals. Through such initiatives, the United States 
moved from a net importer to a net exporter of pork in 1995.
    As a result of trade agreements, U.S. pork exports have increased 
more than 2,090% in value and more than 1,782% in volume since 1989, 
the year the United States implemented its FTA with Canada and started 
opening international markets for value-added agriculture products.
    Since 2000, pork exports to FTA countries have increased 1,178%, 
and in countries where the United States has negotiated preferential 
market access and where tariffs were slashed, pork exports increased 
tremendously as a result of more outlets for the broad range of pork 
products for sale.
    In addition to comprehensive trade agreements granting better 
market access for U.S. pork, the pacts are usually the best avenue for 
U.S. agricultural science-based standards to be accepted and for 
broader non-tariff market access issues to be resolved.
    Policies that foster the free flow of goods and expand export 
markets--primarily through trade agreements--are critical to the 
continued success of America's pork producers, U.S. agriculture, and 
the overall American economy. The bottom line: The United States needs 
more comprehensive trade agreements that eliminate or significantly 
reduce tariffs and non-tariff barriers to U.S. exports.
Employment Challenges
    U.S. pork producers face challenges at home too. Chief among them 
is an ongoing employment shortage impacting much of the agriculture 
sector with varied effects on the nation's food supply. Despite 
significant wage increases and competitive benefits, pig farm 
employment has declined since 2021. Historically low unemployment 
rates, changing demographics, and declining populations in rural 
communities indicate that the domestic workforce will not be able to 
offset the pork industry's employment shortage. As a result, pork 
producers are increasingly dependent on non-domestic workers, and 
current visa programs fail to meet our workforce needs. Improving and 
updating the antiquated H-2A visa program by granting access to year-
round agriculture industries would solve this problem and address the 
needs of non-seasonal farming.
Dietary Guidelines for Americans
    The Dietary Guideline's Advisory Committee's scientific report 
recommendations to reduce red meat, such as pork, and replace it with 
plant-based proteins, is concerning. The repercussions of this decision 
would drastically affect the nutrition of Americans. Protein is 
critical to all diets, and the quality of that protein is important. 
Pork is a nutrient-dense protein that contains ten essential nutrients 
such as iron, zinc, B vitamins, and amino acids. Replacing animal-based 
proteins with plant-based proteins would create nutrient profile gaps. 
Animal-based proteins are also more digestible and bioavailable than 
plant proteins, and it would take more consumption of nuts and beans to 
equal the protein of pork. Research shows that specific groups of 
consumers such as toddlers, adolescent girls, pregnant and lactating 
woman, and the elderly, are deficient in protein intake. Replacing 
animal-based proteins with plant-based proteins is dangerous to these 
groups of consumers.
    Pork is also an affordable option for consumers. The cost of 
groceries continues to be a top-of-mind issue for Americans. It is 
important for Americans who rely on Federal feeding programs (such as 
school meals, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or the 
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and 
Children) to have affordable options that deliver the required 
nutrition. Pork is also is a versatile protein that is relevant across 
a variety of cultures. Reducing and replacing pork will ignore the 
cultural preferences that Americans make and lead to Dietary Guidelines 
recommendations being ignored. Our nation's pork producers are 
committed to producing a safe, lean, and high-quality protein for all 
to enjoy. By reducing pork in the diet, rural communities will be 
disproportionately impacted, as these communities rely on their local 
economy as well as the food that it produces.
    There has been no scientific justification for reducing red meat 
and replacing this needed protein with plant-based products. The 
Dietary Guidelines for Americans must reflect nutrition science and 
continue to recommend animal-based protein, such as pork, as a critical 
part of the American diet.
Conclusion
    While the industry is facing many challenges, pork producers, like 
me, and our industry allies are committed to working together to 
maintain the strength of the U.S. pork industry. We are proud of the 
work we do and appreciate the opportunity to help feed America's 
families.
    NPPC and our Members are thankful to Chairman Mann, Ranking Member 
Costa and Members of the Subcommittee for their leadership and 
consideration of these important issues.

    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Mr. West, please begin when you are ready.

        STATEMENT OF MIKE WEST, PRESIDENT, J.S. WEST & 
  COMPANIES, INC.; CHAIRMAN, UNITED EGG PRODUCERS, MODESTO, CA

    Mr. West. Good morning Chairman Mann, Ranking Member Costa, 
and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for allowing me the 
opportunity to testify today on behalf of the United Egg 
Producers.
    UEP is a farmer cooperative whose members independently 
market about 90 percent of the eggs sold in the United States. 
I am proud to serve on its Board of Directors, and I am even 
prouder to serve as its Chairman up until October of this year.
    My name is Mike West, and I am the proud President of J.S. 
West Milling Company in Modesto, California. J.S. West is a 
family-owned business. We produce eggs and we sell propane, and 
we have been in business for 116 years. My great-grandfather 
founded this company in 1909. Today, we have capacity for two 
million laying hens and we are also the largest privately-held 
propane company in California, and we are looking to widen that 
gap.
    I am the fourth-generation leader of J.S. West Milling 
Company. My father came before me. His father came before that, 
and my great-grandfather started the business back in 1909. Our 
son, Noah, joined the business just 2 months ago. He represents 
the fifth generation of our family. His brother, Nicholas, will 
be next into the business within a couple of years. We take the 
family business seriously in our family.
    However, Noah on his first day of work 2 months ago, his 
brand-new office is on a chicken ranch. He pulled up to that 
ranch on his first day and was met with an eerie silence. That 
is because the month previous to that, we depopulated 550,000 
chickens that were sick with highly-pathogenic avian influenza. 
It was the second such depopulation in the calendar year 2024 
for J.S. West. We depopulated 1.2 million chickens off of our 
Hilmar ranch. Those numbers pale in comparison to what is 
happening across our country. We lost 1.2 million birds. Many, 
many more people are losing many more birds than that on a 
weekly basis.
    HPAI is in every state. It has been found on every 
continent on this planet. This country has depopulated 167 
million chickens since this outbreak started in 2022. In 2025 
alone, we have killed 30 million chickens--laying hen chickens, 
excuse me. If we do some quick math, that is \1/2\ million 
birds almost per day this year.
    Prior to 2022, we had been able to hold this virus at bay 
through biosecurity. The current outbreak is different, ladies 
and gentlemen. The virus is different, and is affecting other 
members of the barnyard. We call those folks neighbors back 
home, and we are all very, very worried about it. It has been 
obvious for some time that we needed to take a different path, 
and the egg industry is very happy to have heard the 
announcement by President Trump and his Administration, 
Secretary Rollins from USDA. We were very heartened to hear 
this announcement on Thursday of last week to hear about a 
five-prong plan to eradicate HPAI, and I would like to talk 
about a few of those points that were announced last week.
    We are pleased to see a very strong focus on vaccination. 
It is our position that between industry collaborating with the 
Federal Government and rolling our sleeves up and really 
talking and solving this problem, we can solve this problem and 
stamp out HPAI. Mandatory funding for research must be done at 
every level. Our lab system in this country is understaffed, 
and this can slow down testing and it can speed up spread. We 
would like to see fully-staffed APHIS members and ARS teams to 
assist producers on the ground during outbreaks. Our industry 
has created a working group. We have put together 
veterinarians, disease prevention experts, and retired 
government officials to come up with an industry plan, and we 
would love to share that plan not just with this Committee, but 
with every Member and with USDA.
    I know Proposition 2 and Proposition 12 have come up in 
this room this morning. I am a California egg producer, and I 
am a very proud California egg producer, and we operate under 
different production standards in our state, and there is a 
handful of other states that do as well.
    The Chairman. Mr. West, your time is expiring. If you can 
make a few final comments, and we can ask you some further 
questions.
    Mr. West. Okay. I would like to thank this Committee for 
your time today. It has been the experience of a lifetime, and 
I will never forget it.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. West follows:]

  Prepared Statement of Mike West, President, J.S. West & Companies, 
           Inc.; Chairman, United Egg Producers, Modesto, CA
Introduction
    Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Jim Costa, and Members of the 
Subcommittee: Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on behalf 
of United Egg Producers. UEP is a farmer cooperative whose members 
independently market about 90% of all eggs produced in the United 
States.
    My name is Mike West, and I am President of J.S. West & Companies, 
Inc.. With headquarters in Modesto, California, J.S. West is a family-
owned producer of eggs and other products and has been in business for 
more than 100 years. I also have the privilege to serve as Chairman of 
UEP.
    With the focal point of today's hearing being the state of the 
animal agriculture economy in the United States, I would observe that, 
in general, the farmers who supply eggs, the feed that makes U.S. egg 
production possible, and retail outlets, restaurant and food-service 
customers that buy our products, have all largely lived in harmony for 
many years--until the arrival of Highly-Pathogenic Avian Influenza, 
also known as HPAI or ``bird flu,'' that hit us in 2015. We have been 
faced with major challenges ever since, with worsening impacts 
beginning in 2022 that continue to trouble our egg producers today. The 
United States has entered the fourth year of an outbreak of HPAI that 
has devastated farms, required the depopulation of more than 162 
million birds on poultry operations, infected a small but growing 
number of farm workers, and--tragically--earlier this year led to the 
first human death in the United States from the disease.
    HPAI has led to an egg supply crisis that has caused pain at every 
level for our customers and consumers. This unprecedented disruption in 
the egg market is systemic--the volatility is being felt nationwide, as 
are the ongoing ripple effects of continuing new cases.
    A new urgency is required from the U.S. Government to address this 
crisis, and we have every confidence that USDA and the White House are 
working every day to provide solutions to egg farmers. Just last week, 
Secretary Rollins and her colleagues at the Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service and other agencies demonstrated a new sense of 
urgency, announcing a new strategy plan that UEP fully endorses. I will 
speak to aspects of USDA's new plan throughout my testimony.
    Today, I will focus on the appropriate role of the U.S. Department 
of Agriculture, and I will identify specific steps that can be taken 
now to improve our response to HPAI and control the disease--many of 
which the Secretary has embraced. For the egg industry, it is 
imperative that USDA move swiftly and decisively--and we now are 
confident that they will. HPAI is the single biggest problem the egg 
industry faces. It is the reason for shortages of eggs and high egg 
prices.
    But more important than any of these is the need to control the 
mutating HPAI virus before it can become more virulent or attain the 
ability to spread easily from human to human. HPAI is about much more 
than eggs--it is about other poultry, livestock, and yes, our human 
population.
    Let me say a word about numbers. The statistics on the numbers of 
farms and birds lost to HPAI were current as of February 27. All these 
numbers are larger today. They are getting bigger--and more alarming--
by the day. We are happy to provide up-to-the-minute numbers for any 
Member who may be interested, but because of the need to submit 
testimony in advance, we want the Subcommittee to understand that the 
HPAI crisis is even more severe than the statistics cited in my 
testimony will indicate.
Background
    Since the current outbreak began in 2022, 165.17 million birds have 
been depopulated from farms where HPAI was detected. In the egg 
industry, there have been detections on 128 farms, and 129.72 million 
birds have been lost. (When a flock is positive with HPAI, virtually 
all birds will die of the disease. Emergency depopulation of the flock 
is required under the Animal Health Protection Act and is more humane 
than allowing the birds to suffer and then die--and it is critically 
important to reduce spread and prevent the disease from moving to 
neighboring farms.)
    It is important to understand the devastating impact HPAI has on 
egg farms. In broiler chicken operations, birds are in barns for a 
matter of a few weeks before being harvested. By contrast, laying hens 
may be actively producing eggs for 2 years or more. If they must be 
depopulated because of HPAI, the time and expense required to get the 
farm to full production are much greater than is the case for broilers. 
During that time, revenue on farms falls to zero.
    The spread of HPAI to the dairy industry beginning in early 2024 
has also brought renewed problems for nearby egg flocks, many of which 
have been infected with the strain found in dairy cattle. Since many 
experts believe the virus is airborne,i\1\ * even the best 
biosecurity systems on egg farms may not be sufficient to prevent 
infection. During 2024, 28 million laying hens were infected with the 
HPAI strain found in dairies, and 14 million with the strain carried by 
wild birds--a 2-to-1 ratio. Understandably, egg farmers feel a sense of 
urgency in controlling HPAI in the dairy sector--our operations have 
become collateral damage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    * Editor's note: there is no corresponding footnote, or endnote, 
for these references; the statement has been reproduced herein as 
submitted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As with broilers, the impact of HPAI on egg farms and dairies is 
quite different. The cattle do not die and eventually return to milk 
production. By contrast, HPAI is always fatal to layers and a 
depopulated farm has no revenue from egg production until the disease 
is confirmed absent and new flocks can be placed.
    In response to outbreaks and lateral transmission in the dairy 
sector, USDA required lactating (but not non-lactating) dairy cattle to 
be tested prior to interstate movement. Some months later, USDA 
announced a National Milk Testing Strategy,\1\ whereby states can 
progress through five stages of response, with the final stage being a 
demonstration of the absence of H5 virus in U.S. dairy cattle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.aphis.usda.gov/livestock-poultry-disease/avian/
avian-influenza/hpai-detections/livestock/nmts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As of early January 2025, 28 states \2\ had enrolled in the 
program. Of these states, three--California, Nevada, and Texas--are 
classified as ``affected,'' meaning the disease has been shown to be 
present. Ten states are conducting national milk plant silo monitoring, 
i.e., testing the milk supply at processing plants, while 18 are 
conducting state-specific surveillance, which involves testing milk on 
individual dairy farms. All of these USDA actions have shown results, 
and the data indicate the HPAI positives from the dairy strain have 
fallen dramatically even as the HPAI strain from wild birds is 
increasing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2025/01/08/
us-department-agriculture-announces-15-additional-states-onboard-
national-milk-testing-strategy-h5n1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The graphic below shows HPAI detections in commercial poultry 
flocks and dairy herds. In addition to these detections in commercial 
operations, there have been 792 detections in small backyard poultry 
flocks and flocks below the commercial threshold.
Commercial Farm Impacts of the 2022-2025 HPAI U.S. Outbreak


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

          * Updated as of February 25, 2025.
          U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health 
        Inspection Service. (2025). Highly-pathogenic avian influenza 
        detections. U.S. Department of Agriculture. https://
        www.aphis.usda.gov/livestock-poultry-disease/avian/avian-
        influenza/hpai-detections.
Egg Prices
    Eggs are an agricultural commodity with inelastic demand. A drop in 
supply can produce a more-than-proportional increase in price. That has 
indeed happened, since HPAI-infected flocks must be depopulated, and it 
takes months to replace them. From October 2024 through mid-February, 
over 49 million layers and pullets were depopulated because of HPAI 
infections. The supply of eggs has fallen significantly as a result.
    Egg farmers, like other farmers, do not set the price of eggs. They 
do not set the retail price in the grocery store, and they do not set 
the wholesale price that is paid to them. Like the prices of corn, 
cattle, soybeans and other commodities, egg prices are established by 
the interplay of supply and demand in the marketplace.
    If the government moves aggressively to better control and prevent 
HPAI, there will be a number of benefits, not least of which that eggs 
will be more plentiful, and there should be corresponding price relief. 
Egg demand has increased year-over-year for 23 consecutive months, and 
it is critical that farms be able to supply that demand for nutritious, 
high-protein eggs. To begin that recovery, we must have a period with 
no new detections of HPAI. The chart over my shoulder shows a snapshot 
of egg prices over time. You can see that after virus subsided post the 
2015, 2022, and 2024 outbreaks, farmers repopulated, and price fell 
back to more historical levels.
Indemnities and Other Federal Costs
    Under the Animal Health Protection Act, USDA's Animal and Plant 
Health Inspection Service (APHIS) pays indemnities to farms affected by 
HPAI, reflecting the mandatory depopulation of all animals on these 
farms. USDA also provides compensation for related expenses such as 
disposal costs.
    In a previous outbreak in 2014-15, taxpayer costs for indemnities, 
compensation and other related expenses were almost $1 billion. Through 
November 2024, in the current (2022-2025) outbreak, Federal expenses 
totaled $1.4 billion, of which $1.25 billion was spent on indemnities 
and compensation to producers.
    Indemnities and compensation are similar to disaster assistance 
that is often made available to other agricultural sectors: a response 
to an unavoidable and catastrophic situation for affected producers, 
which helps but never makes up for the entire loss. Both the emotional 
and financial tolls of HPAI are devastating for egg farmers. Moreover, 
once a farm is infected with HPAI, depopulation is not voluntary, it is 
mandatory under the Animal Health Protection Act. Indemnities partly 
compensate for a loss of value that is imposed on producers by the 
government. Without indemnities and compensation, many farms would 
likely exit production. UEP has shown that the current formulas used by 
APHIS to calculate indemnities are inadequate and has recommended an 
alternative. Thankfully, APHIS agrees, and is updating indemnity 
calculations to more fully reflect the value that is lost when birds 
are depopulated. We look forward to reviewing these updated indemnity 
rates when they are available in the near future.
Vaccination and Trade Strategy Essential
    Since the 2014-15 HPAI outbreak, egg farms have invested heavily in 
biosecurity--measures to prevent disease from entering a farm. During 
that outbreak, the primary means of disease spread was lateral, i.e., 
from one farm to another, likely through vectors like shared 
contractors, shared equipment and visitors. By contrast, in the current 
outbreak, lateral spread among poultry farms was minimal due in large 
part to these new biosecurity practices; most infections were the 
result of point-source introduction, chiefly by wild birds. This also 
seems to be the case when poultry farms are infected by nearby dairies, 
as has increasingly occurred.
    Rigorous biosecurity is normally the poultry industry's best 
defense against HPAI. Unfortunately, current conditions are not normal 
due to the heavy viral load in wild birds as well as the fact that the 
HPAI virus continues to circulate on dairy farms that are often near 
poultry farms. We can no longer rely on biosecurity alone. HPAI is 
persistent and aggressive--and our strict practices are not foolproof.
    It is essential to develop a vaccine strategy that includes not 
only dairy but also layers and turkeys--and is accompanied by a trade 
strategy to avoid impact on broiler exports. In August 2024, UEP joined 
the National Milk Producers Federation, International Dairy Foods 
Association and National Turkey Federation in calling on USDA to 
``support development of safe and effective H5Nx vaccinations for dairy 
cows, turkeys and egg-laying hens to help mitigate the circulation of 
H5Nx in dairy herds and reduce the risk of spill-over of Highly-
Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) into commercial turkey flocks and egg 
layer operations.''
    There is authoritative international support for this view. The 
World Organization for Animal Health (WOAH)'s director general was 
quoted in Reuters \3\ as calling for wider use of vaccination, saying 
that ``if used correctly, it will reduce viral circulation and 
therefore exposure to humans.'' In addition, the World Egg Organization 
has also endorsed vaccination. UEP has assembled a group of world class 
expert veterinarians to develop a comprehensive vaccination strategy 
which we will be sharing with APHIS soon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/
world-animal-health-body-urges-tighter-bird-flu-controls-after-us-
death-2025-01-08/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Secretary Rollins has announced that USDA is developing a vaccine 
strategy and taking a number of related steps. We commend the Secretary 
for her leadership in this vital area. We also realize that developing 
vaccines that are both effective and practical to administer will take 
time. There is much work to be done. We also believe the vaccine 
strategy should include turkey flocks and dairy herds.
Recommendations
    Egg farmers are not satisfied to identify the problems, although 
that is important. We feel a responsibility to identify solutions The 
remainder of this testimony will identify, in some detail, the actions 
our industry believes are appropriate to address the HPAI crisis. We 
believe these recommendations are all consistent with Secretary 
Rollins's February 26 announcement, which contemplates up to $1 billion 
of near-term spending on vaccines, indemnities and biosecurity.
Vaccination

   Adopt an aggressive, forward-looking strategy for 
        vaccination in laying hens and turkeys accompanied by a trade 
        strategy to avoid harming exports.

     Proceed to stockpile vaccines, as announced January 8.

     Take advantage of the single laying flock in Hawaii to 
            begin HPAI vaccine field trials in an area geographically 
            isolated from the continental U.S., thus mitigating trade 
            concerns.

     Work intensively on layer and turkey vaccine delivery 
            methods other than injection (e.g., addition to water 
            supply) since injecting all birds on a farm multiple times 
            is not feasible, particularly in cage-free operations

     Explore the use of ``ring vaccination'' in control 
            zones to reduce spread potential.

     Establish science-based policies, including the 
            ability to differentiate infected from vaccinated animals, 
            that will determine how vaccinated flocks that subsequently 
            test positive are treated.

     Because HPAI is a public health issue, all direct and 
            indirect costs related to vaccination should be borne by 
            the Federal Government.

     Determine which trading partners would react adversely 
            to the use of vaccination and commence intensive 
            negotiations with these countries, which are likely to be 
            small in number, to establish protocols for the use of 
            vaccines without trade interruption.

     Ensure adequate operational funding for the U.S. 
            National Poultry Research Center and mandate that the 
            Center begin research on layer vaccines.

       This requires operations funding of at least $10 million 
            per year, either 
              through inclusion in the President's budget and 
            subsequent appropriation, 
              or through transfer of funds from other sources.

       Currently the Center is conducting research only on 
            dairy and turkey vac-
              cines, but layer vaccine research must be a priority. The 
            Center has the 
              only Biosafety Level 3 facility that can carry out this 
            vaccine work.

       The Federal hiring freeze has left 26 new hires at the 
            Center in limbo. The 
              Administration should immediately exempt these positions 
            from the freeze. 
              It makes no sense to consciously deny resources that are 
            needed to deal 
              with HPAI. (is this comment still true?) **
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ** Editor's note: This appears to be an in-text question by one of 
the authors of the statement; the statement has been reproduced herein 
as submitted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indemnities
   Correct indemnity calculations for laying hens and pullets, 
        adopting reforms recommended by UEP in July 2024.

     These reforms would stabilize indemnity rates from 
            year to year, use only data from either USDA or land-grant 
            institutions, and cover modestly more of producers' 
            devastating losses.

     Even with UEP's recommendations, indemnities would not 
            come close to making producers whole.

   Recognize the higher costs of alternate production methods, 
        such as cage-free, organic, pasture-raised and other methods 
        demanded by some consumers and (in the case of cage-free 
        production) required by law in some states.

     Higher indemnity rates for organic production are 
            already available for some other species, such as turkeys, 
            and gathering the necessary data to set such rates for 
            layers should be a priority.

   Delay implementation of a recent interim final rule \4\ 
        requiring biosecurity audits until an adequate number of 
        auditors have been hired and trained, and until public comments 
        have been received.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ https://www.regulations.gov/document/APHIS-2023-0088-0001.

     The rule was announced when only a handful of trained 
            auditors are available nationwide, and if implemented as 
            published, would greatly delay repopulation of flocks, thus 
            exacerbating supply problems.
Addressing Inter-Species Transfer

   Adopt principles for vaccination and related topics that 
        were laid out on August 16, 2024, letter from UEP, National 
        Milk Producers Federation, International Dairy Foods 
        Association and National Turkey Federation.

   Accelerate testing of all farms in control zones and 
        adjacent counties where any affected species are present.

   Provide for all states to move quickly through the first 
        four stages of the National Milk Testing Strategy. Gather 
        information on the characteristics of dairies in control zones 
        that test negative in order to inform best practices for the 
        industry.

   Expedite field trials of vaccines in dairy cattle, and move 
        toward a program of vaccinating the dairy herd.

   Move proactively toward biosecurity measures in the dairy 
        industry that will reduce spread, in the same way that 
        biosecurity on poultry farms has greatly reduced the amount of 
        lateral spread compared to 2014-15 (most infections have been 
        point-source introductions, e.g., from wild birds).

   Expand testing of dairy cattle moved interstate to include 
        both lactating and non-lactating animals, as well as animals 
        headed for slaughter.
Research to Mitigate Harm from HPAI
   Establish an HPAI Strategic Initiative to engage experts 
        within industry, universities and government to expand 
        knowledge and develop novel methods of prevention, detection 
        and response.

     Details of the initiative were provided in a July 2024 
            letter from UEP, National Chicken Council, National Turkey 
            Federation, USA Poultry & Egg Export Council and U.S. 
            Poultry & Egg Association.
Conclusion
    Egg farmers across the United States appreciate the Subcommittee 
holding this hearing. It is more than timely. And we genuinely 
appreciate all the help and support from Members of this Subcommittee 
and the staff in finding solutions. Prompt action by our government is 
needed to address a crisis that implicates animal disease and welfare; 
the viability of family farms; and most important, public health. The 
costs of inaction are too great to bear.
    We must begin to develop and implement a vaccination strategy that 
will reduce the incidence of HPAI, keep chickens healthy and stabilize 
the U.S. egg supply for American consumers.
    We must change the way farmers are indemnified for HPAI outbreaks 
so that multi-generational family farms stay in business and keep their 
workers employed.
    We must get a handle on this virus and stop it from circulating so 
that it does not mutate into a form that would threaten human health.
    Several other actions have been recommended. One is to expand 
imports of eggs. It is important to understand that eggs are already 
being imported from several countries as ``breaking stock''--eggs to be 
broken, pasteurized and converted into products such as liquid whole 
egg, dried egg whites and numerous others. These imports can 
potentially free up some eggs for the retail market.
    We certainly do not oppose the import of eggs and egg products--as 
long as they are safe. Under longstanding regulations, shell eggs 
imported into the United States should be from farms that comply with 
the Food and Drug Administration's Egg Safety Rule. Egg products 
imported should be from countries with food safety systems that are 
equivalent to ours--as is the case for meat and poultry imports. 
Secretary Rollins has stated clearly that eggs will only be imported if 
they meet our food safety standards, and we commend her for this 
stance.
    Today, our food supply is safe. The risk of human-to-human 
transmission is low.
    But viruses mutate. The more they circulate, the more opportunity 
they have to mutate. We cannot take the kinds of risks that rapid 
mutation entails. We must move decisively and with urgency to control 
this disease. The time for waiting has passed.
    Thank you for asking us to testify and for considering our views.
                               Attachment
Egg Prices Are a Direct Result of HPAI (Bird Flu)
126 Million Hens Lost Since February 2022

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    The Chairman. Thank you very much for being here.
    Mr. Hopkins, please begin when you are ready.

       STATEMENT OF LARRY HOPKINS, REGION III DIRECTOR, 
           EXECUTIVE BOARD, AMERICAN SHEEP INDUSTRY 
                  ASSOCIATION, ZIONSVILLE, IN

    Mr. Hopkins. Chairman Mann, Ranking Member Costa, and 
Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to 
speak with you today. I serve on the Executive Board of the 
American Sheep Industry Association, and am here to represent 
the country's 100,000 lamb and wool producing farms and 
ranches. We view the bipartisan version of the farm bill passed 
by this Committee last May very favorably. In fact, from our 
membership's perspective, it may be the best farm bill we have 
ever seen. ASI appreciates the last two extensions of the 2018 
Farm Bill; however, in spite of the Committee's best efforts, 
we are greatly concerned that the orphan programs were not 
included in the most recent extension. We ask that you include 
them in the next moving vehicle. The importance of those 
programs cannot be overstated.
    Ultimately, the reauthorization of the farm bill and the 
infrastructure it provides is paramount for the survival of our 
industry, and our continued ability to provide the wool that 
clothes American servicemen and women, and the American lamb 
that feeds your constituents. A large share of the U.S. wool 
clip did not receive a bid for purchase in 2024, and we are now 
in the shearing season for this year's clip. The trade war with 
China in 2018 blew up our single largest market for American 
wool. That loss was shortly followed by the pandemic that 
shuttered wool textile mills across the world, and wiped out 
demand for most wool garments. That demand has yet to return to 
full strength, and buyers continue taking advantage of the 
prices of our stockpile.
    Current marketing loan rates have not been updated in 
nearly 25 years; therefore, your efforts to update the loan 
rate in last year's bill were greatly appreciated, and we 
strongly support that change being included in the current 
effort. For some producers, the program is their only wool 
marketing tool.
    Further, please consider us in any future support resulting 
from unfair trade practices of our competitors. We encourage 
continued support of USDA's FAS programs, which support the 
opening of new markets of our products. Reliance on China alone 
is risky, as they have more wool textile processing equipment 
than the balance of the world combined.
    This month's USDA inventory report revealed an increase in 
the nation's sheep herd, due largely to the rapid expansion of 
solar and fire prevention grazing. Yet producers are dealing 
with record-high input prices and depressed markets. The lamb 
market at the wholesale level has been stagnant for the past 
year, and any uptick is quickly dampened by imported lamb from 
Australia and New Zealand, portions of which were up over 33 
percent last year. These conditions highlight the volatility we 
struggle with, particularly given neither a futures market nor 
a hedge against market downturns exists for us.
    Last spring, USDA RMA issued a report evaluating risk 
management tools available to the industry, or lack thereof. 
The report acknowledged our need for a quality risk management 
tool, but ultimately did not provide recommendations. We 
therefore ask the Committee to direct the Secretary to provide 
recommendations for a viable, specific sheep management tool.
    One-third of America's sheep herd is under the watch of an 
H-2A sheep herder. Overtime payments required by certain states 
and the mandated salary increase forced on sheep producers by 
the Department of Labor's use of the Adverse Effect Wage Rate 
methodology are literally driving ranchers out of business. 
Salary alone in California, the second largest sheep producing 
state, is nearly $58,000 annually per herder. This combined 
with a mandate that we provide the herders with food, board, 
clothing, while also covering application and visa fees, has 
driven our costs to an untenable level. California has lost 
nearly 15 percent of sheep production over the last 2 years 
alone. Research by Wyoming wool growers shows that Wyoming, the 
third largest sheep producing state, is dealing with similar 
resolve. ASI appreciates the prompt reaction of the 
Administration with great support from Members of Congress to 
bring USDA APHIS Wildlife Services personnel back online last 
month. Millions of head of livestock are protected from coyotes 
and other predators via an agency that is uniquely important to 
us. ASI strongly supports USDA's Minor Drug Use Development 
Programs. The cost of bringing a new animal drug to market is 
rising, and many pharmaceutical companies are not investing in 
such development. The lack of access to these products, which 
are used by our competitors, creates a disadvantage. While 
imported lamb may be treated with a foreign drug, that same 
product is often not approved for use here by the FDA.
    In summary, ASI thanks you for including our priorities 
last year and believes that the reauthorization of a similar 
farm bill is crucial to all of our members.
    Thank you all very much.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Hopkins follows:]

  Prepared Statement of Larry Hopkins, Region III Director, Executive 
       Board, American Sheep Industry Association, Zionsville, IN
Introduction
    Chairman Mann, Ranking Member Costa, and Members of the 
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. I 
serve as the region III chair on the Executive Board of the American 
Sheep Industry Association (ASI), to represent the country's 100,000 
lamb and wool producing farms and ranches. I also serve as the 
association's Legislative Action Chair and am pleased to relay the 
status of the sheep industry asks of the 119th Congress. We view the 
bipartisan version of the farm bill that was passed out of the 
Committee in 2024, very favorably and share today those priorities to 
assist our industry.
Farm Bill Extension
    ASI appreciates the 1 year extension of the 2018 Farm Bill as 
provided late 2023 and the subsequent extension for 2024. We are 
greatly concerned that the ``orphan programs'' were not included in the 
recent extension attached to December's continuing resolution (CR) and 
ask every consideration to include the programs in this month's Federal 
funding actions as the deadline for the current CR approaches March 14, 
2025. The sheep and wool industry have two programs in that group and 
welcome an opportunity for those to be funded this year. Ultimately, 
the reauthorization of a new farm bill is paramount as we rely on these 
programs for infrastructure support particularly for our wool textile 
infrastructure including the wool clothing for America's service men 
and women.
    The Chairman's 2024 version of the farm bill which includes the 
Agricultural Fiber Products Trust and serves both wool and cotton is 
very strongly supported by the sheep industry.
2025 Farm Bill
    A large share of the mid-western and eastern wool clips did not 
receive a bid for purchase in 2024 and we are now in the shearing 
season for the 2025 clip. The trade war with China in 2018 blew up our 
single largest market for American wool. This loss was shortly followed 
by the pandemic that shuttered wool textile mills across the world and 
wiped-out demand for most wool garments. That demand has yet to return 
to full strength and buyers recognize the years of production that have 
been stockpiled since 2020.
    We encourage this Committee to support the increase ASI has 
requested in the wool marketing loan rate in the next farm bill. The 
current rates were set nearly 25 years ago, and I share for some 
producers, the loan is their only revenue for wool in today's market. 
Further, please consider wool in any market facilitation payment due to 
trade battles as this was not the case in 2018.
    We encourage support of the USDA FAS programs as ASI is 
aggressively applying and implementing exploration of new markets and 
support of current exports to drive sales of American wool. To 
underscore the importance of securing markets, China has more wool 
textile processing equipment than the balance of the world combined.
    This month's USDA inventory report revealed an increase in the 
nation's sheep herd. This is a notable report as sheep producers are 
dealing with record high input prices and non-existent, depressed, or 
flat markets for their sheep and wool. The lamb market at the wholesale 
level has been stagnant for the past year and any uptick is quickly 
dampened by the surge in imported lamb from Australia and New Zealand 
(portions of the trade have witnessed a \1/3\ jump in volume of 2024 
over 2023).
    Importers are taking full advantage of the U.S. currency exchange 
that favors imports, hurting our domestic prices and exports. ASI has 
engaged a legal firm specializing in international trade twice in 4 
years and is discussing a third investigation with our board of 
directors this winter.
    These market conditions highlight the volatility that sheep 
producers struggle with in sourcing and servicing financing. Neither of 
our commodities have a futures market or the ability to hedge against 
market turns. USDA Risk Management Agency investigated a risk 
management product for sheep producers and provided a report in the 
summer of 2024. The report discusses several approaches but does not 
recommend a product for USDA to develop. ASI believes the lone 
opportunity for USDA development of a risk management tool relies on 
direction in the new farm bill.
    ASI reiterates our strong support in the bill for Livestock 
Mandatory Price reporting, conservation programming as well as the 
disaster/drought provisions.
Labor
    One-third of America's sheep herd is under the watch of an H-2A 
sheepherder. Mandatory and unnecessary overtime payments required by 
certain states and the mandated salary increase forced on sheep 
producers by the Department of Labor's use of the adverse effect wage 
rate (AEWR) methodology are literally driving ranchers out of the 
business.
    Salary, program fees and the cost of food and housing (all paid for 
by the sheep rancher) have skyrocketed in the past 8 years. Salary 
alone in California (the second largest sheep producing state) is 
nearly $58,000 annually. This combined with food expenses for a 
sheepherder plus board, clothes and the application and visa fees have 
driven costs to an untenable level and the state has lost nearly 15 
percent of sheep production in 2 years as proof. Research by the 
Wyoming Wool Growers Association shows a similar result of H-2A salary 
and fee increases as not sustainable for sheep production in the third 
largest sheep producing state.
    ASI has re-formed an industry H-2A working group with plans to 
present our industry's recommended changes to regulation and statute of 
the program during our spring fly-in the last week of March 2025.
Regulations
    The 2024 decision of USDA to discontinue the use and supply of 
spring-loaded ejection devices (sled) for coyote control is a 
regulatory issue that we ask the Committee to promptly support at USDA.
    Predator management expense and the lost value of sheep killed by 
predators represents the second largest expense for many sheep farm and 
ranches in America. Removing any tool from our livestock protection 
options has major ramifications. The sled is critical to livestock 
protection in states including Texas, North Dakota, and West Virginia. 
As a fully approved device for rodenticide by the EPA, we support USDA 
promptly restoring the use and supply of this livestock protection 
tool.
    ASI and our state sheep producer affiliate organizations appreciate 
the prompt reaction of the Administration with great support from 
Members of Congress, to bring USDA APHIS Wildlife Services personnel 
back online this month. The alarm of ranchers to the loss of pilots, 
[aerial] support staff and livestock protection specialists cannot be 
understated. Millions of head of livestock are protected via the 
industry, state and Federal cooperative agreements of Wildlife 
[Services].
Animal Health
    ASI appreciates the Committee's efforts to authorize and fund the 
foreign animal disease preparation of the 2018 Farm Bill and we fully 
support this in the next farm bill. ASI and partners continue to build 
out the plans for a disease event with support of the USDA personnel 
and funds on private and Federal land livestock operations. We further 
appreciate the USDA APHIS staff and expertise regarding the New World 
Screwworm and Highly-Pathogenic Avian Influenza and relay the Federal 
officials are in regular contact with our association on these threats. 
To add to the disease and animal health front, we are nearing the 
scrapie free designation that ASI and USDA jointly sought fully 2 
decades ago with the launch of the Scrapie Eradication Program. While 
the disease and pest threats are heightened today, the Agriculture 
Committee leadership has dramatically improved the livestock industry 
preparedness to address via tracking animal movement, research, and 
vaccination.
Minor Use Minor Species Animal Drug Program
    America's sheep producers have limited means to protect and prevent 
disease in their animals as animal health and welfare are critical 
aspects for ensuring a sustainable sheep industry. The cost of bringing 
a new animal drug to market is rising and many pharmaceutical companies 
are not investing in developing products for sheep. USDA established 
the Minor Use Animal Drug Program to address the shortage of animal 
drugs for minor species and uses by funding and overseeing the 
efficacy, animal safety, and human food safety research and 
environmental assessment required for Food and Drug Administration 
(FDA) drug approval. Funding for this program ceased in 2016, and a 
result the program lacks the staff and expertise to meet its mission of 
increasing the number of therapeutic drugs approved for minor animal 
species. To remedy this, ASI supports an annual allocation to USDA's 
National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) Minor Use Animal Drug 
Program (MUADP) of $5 million to fund research and development to 
support the approval of new drug products for sheep.
Access to Animal Drugs
    With five million sheep, animal drug manufacturers often find that 
securing FDA approval for new, innovative, and even older products is 
not cost effective for this market. While the Minor Use and Minor 
Species Animal Health Act of 2004 (MUMS Act) is intended to make more 
products legally available for minor animal species, the current FDA 
animal drug-approval process is unworkable for the sheep industry. It 
is prohibitively expensive, which is discouraging the development of 
products for the prevention and treatment of sheep diseases in the 
United States. The lack of access to these products which are used by 
our competitors in other countries, places the United States sheep 
producers at a disadvantage, not to mention limiting their ability to 
ensure the welfare of their animals and the safety of the national food 
supply. While imported lamb may be treated with a product that has a 
USDA/Food Safety Inspection Service accepted residue level, that same 
product often is not approved for use in the United States by the FDA. 
The [Government] Accountability Office (GAO) has recently begun a study 
on the MUMS Act to evaluate if the objectives are being met with 
respect to sheep, the effectiveness of the incentives to address the 
high development costs, the cost and duration to bring a new animal 
drug product to market versus other countries, and to review the number 
of products for sheep in the United States relative to the those 
available in our competing markets.
Summary
    The American Sheep Industry Association pledges our full support to 
secure these requests and believes the farm bill is pivotal to 
thousands of operations being able to finance their business.

    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Mr. Schweitzer, please begin when you are ready.

  STATEMENT OF WALTER SCHWEITZER, PRESIDENT, MONTANA FARMERS 
                       UNION, GEYSER, MT

    Mr. Schweitzer. Thank you, Chairman Mann, Ranking Member 
Costa for the invitation to testify today. My name is Walter 
Schweitzer, and I am President of Montana Farmers Union.
    I am a third generation Montana farmer. All of my 
grandparents homesteaded in Montana. I raise registered black 
Angus cattle, hay, and grain. I am also an international ag 
consultant and have been involved in international trade. My 
testimony today will be mostly about two themes: competitive 
markets and reducing uncertainty.
    I believe we must build a more resilient food system, one 
that is more diverse than the one we have today, with 
additional local and regional production markets and an 
infrastructure. During the pandemic, we saw how fragile our 
highly consolidated food system is. But it doesn't have to be 
that way. When I first started farming, we had several packing 
plants, flour mills, bakeries, and home delivered milk in most 
of our major communities. Now, almost all of these are gone. We 
had family-owned grocery stores in every small community that 
had Montana food on its shelves. Now, most of the food produced 
in Montana is shipped 1,000 miles away to be processed, 
packaged, and then shipped back to corporate-owned grocery 
stores. This is not a resilient food system, and our food 
security is at risk.
    We can start addressing these problems by focusing on one 
of Montana's biggest businesses, the cattle industry. Prices 
are relatively high today, but market volatility and 
uncertainty will remain high without more oversight of 
competition laws. For beef, just four firms control more than 
80 percent of the packing. Cattle ranchers are hesitant to 
reinvest in rebuilding their herds when they are at the mercy 
of four large, multi-national corporations. We must push back 
against these monopolies with strong enforcement of competition 
laws.
    For over a century, the Packers and Stockyard Act has 
protected the ability of independent family farmers and 
ranchers to compete in a fair and open marketplace without fear 
of retaliation or discrimination. But those protections had 
eroded until the last few years. Recent updates to the Packers 
and Stockyard Act strengthened protection for family livestock 
producers. Lawmakers should maintain those common sense, 
farmer-focused actions.
    We should better equip the USDA to enforce these rules by 
passing the Meat and Poultry Special Investigator Act (H.R. 
1380), which could dedicate more resources to fight 
monopolistic practices in the livestock markets. The cattle 
sector would be more competitive with the passage of the Cattle 
Price Discovery and Transparency Act of 2023 (H.R. 1287, 118th 
Congress) to ensure a robust cash market for cattle. Passing 
and enforcing a strong agricultural right to repair law would 
save American farmers $4 billion per year in repair costs, and 
$3 billion in crop loss due to downtime each year.
    Another way to address the lack of competition is by 
starting our own marketing channels. Montana Farmers Union 
worked with several direct to market producers to form meat 
processing cooperatives, the Montana Premium Processing 
Cooperative and the Glacier Processing Cooperative, that 
leveraged USDA grants and low-interest loans to build new 
plants. Ranchers in our co-ops now have additional markets, and 
consumers have more choices to purchase local food.
    We also need to make sure that consumers know what they are 
buying. Truthful and accurate labels are important to American 
producers and helpful for consumers. That is why Farmers Union 
supports the bipartisan American Beef Labeling Act of 2025 (S. 
421), which requires mandatory country of origin labeling for 
beef. I urge you to reinstate COOL to make markets fair and 
more competitive for the American cattle producer.
    There are many livestock producers who are facing 
uncertainty due to early actions by the Administration to pause 
Federal grants and layoffs of tens of thousands of employees. 
Some Montana farmers and ranchers voluntarily enrolled in the 
USDA conservation programs to improve their farm operation. 
Many farmers have been told that they are not being reimbursed. 
Even if the funds eventually come, the uncertainty is bad for 
long-term planning. I hope this Subcommittee will keep a close 
eye on these cuts and how they affect farmers and ranchers.
    Finally, one of the best ways to reduce uncertainty in this 
livestock sector is to advance a strong farm bill that includes 
improved livestock disaster and insurance offerings. The farm 
bill is long overdue, and I urge you to push back against 
proposed agricultural conservation and nutrition cuts. I 
believe that investing in food security is national security, 
and should be as much of a priority as investing in our 
military.
    The Chairman. Your time has expired.
    Mr. Schweitzer. Thank you for the opportunity to testify, 
and I look forward to answering your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Schweitzer follows:]

  Prepared Statement of Walter Schweitzer, President, Montana Farmers 
                           Union, Geyser, MT
    Thank you for the invitation and the opportunity to provide 
testimony on behalf of National Farmers Union (NFU) and Montana Farmers 
Union. NFU is made up of more than 200,000 family farmers and ranchers 
across the country. Similarly, Montana Farmers Union is a grassroots, 
nonprofit organization dedicated to preserving the agricultural way of 
life, our rural communities, and family farms and ranches. We believe 
that no farmer or rancher should stand alone, and we are fighting for 
the issues that will preserve agriculture and rural communities for the 
next generation.
    I am a third-generation Montana farmer. All of my grandparents 
homesteaded in the state. Today, I raise Registered Black Angus cattle, 
hay, and grain. I am also an international agriculture consultant and I 
have been involved in international trade for over forty years. I serve 
as Montana Farmers Union President and Chairman of NFU's Legislative 
Committee.
    During this hearing, I will primarily address issues in the cattle 
market, because that is the specific livestock market in which I 
participate. But NFU, as a general farm organization, represents a 
diverse array of farm and ranch operations. We see the nearly complete 
vertical integration of the poultry and pork sectors over the past 
several decades as a cautionary tale for what could happen--and is 
increasingly happening--in cattle markets. We could end up in the same 
place if we do not have fair, open, and competitive markets.
    I also believe we must build a more resilient food system. A more 
resilient food system is one that is more diverse than the one we have 
today, with additional local and regional production, markets, and 
infrastructure. During the COVID-19 pandemic, and the drastic supply 
and demand shifts that came with it, we saw how fragile our highly 
consolidated food system had become. Consumers faced empty food shelves 
and meat counters while producers had no choice but to euthanize 
livestock, dump milk, and plow over fields due to supply chain 
breakdowns. We can prevent this from happening again by making good 
policy decisions, especially if we consider that the food system was 
not always this fragile.
    When I first started farming we had several packing plants, flour 
mills, bakeries, and home-delivered milk in most of our major 
communities. Now almost all of these are gone. Family-owned grocery 
stores in every small community had shelves full of Montana-produced 
food. Now most of the food produced in Montana is shipped a thousand 
miles away to be processed, packaged, and shipped back to large 
corporate-owned grocery stores. This is not a resilient food supply and 
our food security is at risk. Because we have lost the local food 
processing facilities providing good-paying jobs in our communities, 
Montana has more ghost towns than healthy, thriving communities. Many 
of our local stores, schools and churches have closed. Many of us have 
to travel hours to educate our children, buy our supplies, care for our 
health, and worship. Increased investments in local food processing 
will cultivate healthy, vibrant communities throughout the country.
Economic Conditions Facing Livestock Producers
    American cattle producers are today experiencing the smallest cow 
herd in over 70 years, which is a result of widespread drought over the 
last few years and an anticompetitive market filled with uncertainty. 
The number of beef cows in the U.S. is down 39 percent from the 
historic peak set in 1975, marking the smallest beef cow inventory 
since 1961.\1\ Due to these supplies and strong demand for beef, along 
with stronger enforcement of the Packers and Stockyards Act (P&S Act) 
in recent years, cattle prices today are higher than they were 5 years 
ago.\2\ But even with these strong prices, significant uncertainty 
remains, especially around trade. While higher than average prices are 
expected to linger, volatility will likely remain high without 
continued oversight of the packers. Prices will be subject to short-
term setbacks due to macroeconomic forces, political uncertainties, and 
packer manipulation.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Economic Research Service 
(ERS). ``Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry Outlook: February 2025,'' Feb. 
18, 2025. https://ers.usda.gov/sites/default/files/_laserfiche/
outlooks/110972/LDP-M-368.pdf?v=22396.
    \2\ USDA National Agriculture Statistics Service (NASS). ``Prices 
Received for Cattle by Month--United States,'' Feb. 28, 2025. https://
www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/Agricultural_Prices/priceca.php.
    \3\ Peel, Derrell and Anderson, David P, ``Cattle markets bullish 
but cautious in 2025.'' Farm Progress. Jan. 23, 2025. https://
www.farmprogress.com/livestock/cattle-markets-bullish-but-cautious-in-
2025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A major concern for cattle ranchers is the control of the market by 
multinational corporations. The beef packing industry is highly 
consolidated and uncompetitive, with just four firms controlling more 
than 80 percent of the processing market. Concentration is high in hog 
processing (65 percent) and among poultry integrators (55 percent) as 
well. At the local and regional levels, concentration is even higher, 
and that more clearly reflects the marketing opportunities for 
individual ranchers. Cattle ranchers are hesitant to reinvest in 
rebuilding their herds when they are at the mercy of four large 
multinational packers. These packers have leveraged opportunities to 
both demand high retail prices from consumers and pay producers less. 
For instance, in 2019, a fire at a major packing plant owned by one of 
the big four meatpackers led to a simultaneous drop in cattle purchase 
prices from producers and an increase in beef prices for consumers. 
Subsequent analysis of processing data revealed that, contrary to what 
one would expect based on resulting prices, meatpackers processed over 
5,000 more head of cattle in the weeks following the fire than in the 
weeks before. Without strong oversight of packers, we are at risk of 
price manipulation that harms ranchers and consumers.
Country-of-Origin Labeling
    We also need to make sure that consumers know what they're buying. 
Truthful and accurate voluntary labels are important to American 
producers and helpful for consumers. Thus, NFU supports reinstating 
mandatory country-of-origin labeling (COOL).
    The bipartisan American Beef Labeling Act would require COOL for 
beef sold in grocery stores, helping consumers make informed decisions 
through clear and accurate food labels and promoting a fairer and more 
competitive market for America's cattle producers. Congress can take 
action to help put American consumers, farmers, and ranchers first by 
reinstating COOL. American producers deserve the right to choose, and 
American cattle farmers and ranchers deserve the right to compete for 
consumers' favor in their domestic market. Please keep and enforce the 
new rule that the label ``Product of USA'' can only be used on products 
that are from animals that were born, raised, and processed in the U.S.
Packers and Stockyards Act
    For over a century, the P&S Act has protected the ability of 
independent family farmers and ranchers to compete in a fair and open 
marketplace, without fear of retaliation or discrimination. But those 
protections have eroded. When a handful of powerful corporations 
control livestock markets, producers lose their ability to negotiate 
fair prices, secure transparent contracts, and build a future for the 
next generation. Without strong safeguards and clear rules of the road, 
rural communities suffer due to unfair practices that tilt the playing 
field against independent producers and that stifle the entrepreneurial 
spirit that has made America great. Recent updates to the P&S Act 
strengthened protections for family livestock producers and 
policymakers should maintain these common-sense, farmer-focused 
actions.
Farmer-Focused Enforcement of Anti-Competitive Actions
    The updated P&S Act, as well as our nation's antitrust laws, must 
be vigorously enforced so that we can give independent livestock 
producers the tools they need to compete fairly, reinvest in their 
communities, pass down their operations to the next generation, and 
continue the proud tradition of feeding America.
    USDA needs stronger tools to enforce the P&S Act and conduct 
investigations into unfair and anticompetitive conduct. The bipartisan 
Meat and Poultry Special Investigator Act would further empower USDA 
and provide more resources to address anticompetitive behavior in 
livestock markets. The bill also provides the cross-agency 
collaboration with the Department of Justice, the Federal Trade 
Commission, and the Department of Homeland Security necessary to 
address monopolistic practices within the industry and protect against 
actions that would threaten our food supply. We ask Members of this 
Committee to review and advance this important bill.
Cattle Price Discovery and Transparency
    Another concern in the cattle industry is the impact the decline in 
negotiated, or cash, trade has on price transparency and discovery. The 
cash market serves as the basis for all cattle prices, even as there 
has been a proliferation of alternative marketing arrangements (AMAs) 
that can sometimes be an attractive option for cattle producers.
    Congress must ensure there's a robust cash market for cattle to 
provide price discovery for all other sales. That is why we have been 
pushing for the bipartisan Cattle Price Discovery and Transparency Act 
in recent years. The bill would promote fairness and transparency in 
cattle markets by improving price discovery through negotiated trades. 
The bill would require more timely reporting of market dynamics to give 
producers more insight into the market and better leverage when 
negotiating prices for their cattle. We hope policymakers advance the 
core concepts behind this bill during the 119th Congress.
Local and Regional Processing
    Anti-competitive pressures have eroded local and regional livestock 
processing options, which limits opportunities in the marketplace for 
producers while making our food system less resilient. Local and 
regional market opportunities, supported by adequate alternative 
processing capacity, can help farmers capture a larger share of the 
food dollar.
    In recent years, USDA increased its support for businesses and 
communities looking to invest in expanded meat and poultry processing. 
Members of Congress have also taken note of the importance of this 
issue, introducing the bipartisan Strengthening Local Processing Act in 
the last Congress. We expect this legislation to be reintroduced very 
soon. USDA's investments are critical, and we must ensure these new 
facilities are able to operate sustainably and thrive over the long-
term.
    These new facilities are making a big difference in Montana so far. 
We eat about 100,000 head of cattle each year in Montana. Prior to this 
recent investment in our local meat processing we could only process 
about 30,000 head each year. Even though Montana raises and sells about 
two million calves each year, it became abundantly clear during the 
pandemic that we did not have the right infrastructure in place to feed 
ourselves. Thanks to recent investments in the state, supported by USDA 
grants and low-interest loans, we now have the capacity to process over 
half of the cattle we consume. Investing in food security is national 
security should be as much of a priority as investing in our military.
    Another major challenge facing producers is inflexibility in 
scheduling for harvest of their livestock because of the robust demand 
for too-few local processing facilities. Producers often must schedule 
harvests for 1 or even 2 years out, which means for some producers they 
must schedule harvest dates before animals are even born. Recent 
investments also helped us tackle this issue. Montana Farmers Union 
worked with several direct-to-market producers to form meat processing 
cooperatives--for example, the Montana Premium Processing Co-op \4\--
that leveraged USDA grants and low-interest loans to build meat 
processing plants. Now, the approximately 100 livestock producers that 
are member-owners of these cooperatives can schedule harvest in a much 
more manageable 3 month window.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Montana Premium Processing Cooperative. https://
www.mtpremiumprocessing.com/directors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Despite this good news, without strong enforcement of the P&S Act 
and our antitrust laws, and ongoing and consistent support for new 
processing facilities from USDA, we fear the major meatpackers will 
force the new smaller packing plants in our state out of business like 
they did in the 1980s.
Federal Funding Freeze and Layoffs
    Early actions by the new Administration to freeze Federal funding 
and lay off or buy out many Federal workers have created significant 
uncertainty for farmers and ranchers across the country. NFU and 
Montana Farmers Union are gathering stories and information from 
members and other rural Americans about how these rapid changes have 
created challenges, and livestock producers are among those affected.
    Many farmers and ranchers choose to work with USDA's Natural 
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and enroll in conservation 
programs to strengthen their businesses, make improvements to their 
farm operation, and protect their natural resources. These programs, 
such as the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and the 
Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) work on a reimbursement and cost 
share model where farmers voluntarily take on the initial expense of 
contracted projects with an understanding that USDA will reimburse them 
promptly. We have heard from many farmers who have told us that the 
funding freeze on some conservation program funds has prevented timely 
reimbursement of the expenses they have already incurred for contracted 
projects. Even if the money remains in the programs and farmers are 
reimbursed, the uncertainty is bad for long-term planning.
    Program payment limits of $450,000 for EQIP and $200,000 for CSP, 
and the fact that both of these programs work often through long-term, 
multi-year contracts, mean farmers enrolled in either or both programs 
can incur hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs before being 
reimbursed. We have heard stories of lenders reluctant to renew 
farmers' operating lines without assurance that these programs will 
continue, and farmers leveraging existing lines of credit with high 
interest rates to cover these costs until the funds are, hopefully, 
released. We appreciate that USDA recently released a very small 
percentage of the funding for frozen programs, but we urge the 
department to complete their review and release all remaining funds as 
soon as possible to relieve farmers of the uncertainty they are facing.
    USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) also recently 
attempted to rehire several staff members that had been fired when it 
became clear that their expertise was needed to help address the 
outbreak of highly-pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI). We urge similar 
actions for FSIS meat inspectors. An FSIS inspector must be on site at 
a meat or poultry processing facility in order for it to operate; 
reductions in the inspection force could significantly reduce 
processing capacity and create backlogs in the supply chain.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Katz, Eric, ``Trump exempted public safety roles from his 
hiring freeze. Federal firefighters, prison guards and food inspectors 
wonder why they don't count.'' Government Executive. https://
www.govexec.com/workforce/2025/02/trump-exempted-public-safety-roles-
his-hiring-freeze-federal-firefighters-prison-guards-and-food-
inspectors-wonder-why-they-dont-count/402871/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Farmers Union members are also well-aware of the longtime 
challenges of recruiting and retaining qualified local USDA staff for 
the Farm Service Agency, NRCS, and other agencies. We are very 
concerned that reducing the Federal workforce will only exacerbate 
these issues. We urge this Subcommittee to ensure the Administration's 
pause on many Federal grants, hiring freeze, and layoffs of Federal 
workers do not adversely impact livestock producers or other farmers 
and rural Americans more than they already have.
Livestock Risk Management and Disaster Programs
    The farm bill can help protect family farmers and ranchers against 
natural disasters and lower prices. That's why Farmers Union urges 
continued efforts to improve disaster programs and insurance options 
for livestock producers to be able to manage their risk effectively.
    The American Relief Act of 2024 included $2 billion in ad hoc 
assistance to livestock producers. I hope this Committee will help 
Secretary Rollins gather information about how those dollars can be 
most effectively distributed. Additionally, emergency disaster 
programs, like Wildfires and Hurricanes Indemnity Program (WHIP and 
WHIP+), the Emergency Livestock Relief Program (ELRP), and the 
Emergency Relief Program (ERP) made $17.6 billion available to 
livestock programs between 2017 and 2024.\6\ These programs helped keep 
ranch families in business but need careful review to make sure the 
next round of assistance is as effective and equitable as possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Congressional Research Service (CRS) ``Livestock Forage 
Disaster Program (LFP): Drought and Wildfire Assistance.'' June 4, 
2024. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R48082.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As this Subcommittee knows well, the farm bill is overdue and it is 
time to make improvements to these risk management programs and 
livestock policy in general. Recent spending levels set in the House 
budget reconciliation bill would eliminate a very large portion of the 
funding the Agriculture Committees need to build support for farm, 
conservation, and food policy legislation. We urge you to push back 
against deep cuts to agriculture spending because family farmers and 
ranchers need a strong farm bill.
Additional Policy Priorities
Animal Identification
    If there are any efforts toward expanding a mandatory national 
animal identification system, lawmakers should ensure that this should 
not be at the expense of producers. A broader national animal 
identification should be about U.S. herd health and is a national food 
security issue, so the costs of implementing the program, including the 
tags, readers and database, must be borne by the Federal Government and 
not passed on to family farmers and ranchers.
Trade
    International trade brings a lot of value to our livestock market, 
so whenever policies start to shift and change, lawmakers need to 
carefully consider the effects on farmers and ranchers. We need a 
measured approach to tariffs and trade. Tariffs can be a powerful and 
useful tool when used in a smart way, but if they aren't, the results 
can be catastrophic: lost markets for agricultural products, higher 
prices for consumers, and farm income drops.
Check-offs
    NFU supports voluntary, producer-financed commodity research and 
promotion programs, so long as they are transparent and regularly 
audited and independently evaluated for effectiveness. Over the years, 
a few of these check-off programs have misused funds and have well-
documented conflicts of interest. Family farmers and ranchers would be 
well served by greater oversight of these farmer-paid funds. That's why 
NFU supports the Opportunities for Fairness in Farming (OFF) Act, which 
would provide more supervision and review of commodity check-off 
programs.
Conclusion
    The livestock sector has become highly consolidated and 
uncompetitive, much to the detriment of family farmers, ranchers, rural 
communities, and consumers. We have seen important progress in recent 
years, however, to bring fairness for farmers back into the livestock 
marketplace. This Subcommittee should push forward to enact these 
policy priorities to best serve American agriculture.
    Thank you for the opportunity. I appreciate the Subcommittee's 
attention and look forward to answering your questions.

    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Next we will hear from Mr. Sander. Please proceed when you 
are ready.

         STATEMENT OF TROY SANDER, PAST CHAIRMAN, LIVE 
     CATTLE MARKETING COMMITTEE, NATIONAL CATTLEMEN'S BEEF 
                 ASSOCIATION, OKLAHOMA CITY, OK

    Mr. Sander. Chairman Mann, Ranking Member Costa, and 
Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the invitation to 
share a cattle producer's perspective on the state of the 
livestock industry. My name is Troy Sander. I am the Chief 
Operating Officer for Heritage Beef, a Kansas-based cattle 
feeding business, and the current President of the Kansas 
Livestock Association. I am also a proud member of the National 
Cattlemen's Beef Association, or NCBA, where I just concluded 
my time as Chairman of the Live Cattle Marketing Committee.
    NCBA has been the trusted leader and definitive voice of 
the U.S. cattle industry since 1898. NCBA today represents over 
25,000 direct members and approximately 178,000 through its 44 
state affiliate organizations. As the chair of one of NCBA's 
seven policy committees, I have seen firsthand our century-old 
grassroots policymaking process at work. Every member has a 
voice in that process, and it is on behalf of these cattle 
producing families that I testify before you today.
    In general, and certainly more so than any time in the 
recent past, I am pleased to report that the state of the 
cattle industry is healthy and strong. We are seeing cyclically 
high prices for fed cattle feeders, calves, and cows, and even 
setting new price records in some cases. While much of this can 
be attributed to tight cattle supplies, beef demand has also 
held strong in the face of inflation and tighter household 
incomes. Consumers know that beef is a nutrient-dense and 
efficient source of protein, and that is largely why they keep 
coming back for more. Not to mention it tastes pretty good, 
which we got to experience last night.
    While we maintain a positive outlook in our industry, we 
are also not immune to the challenges that face all of 
production agriculture. Input costs such as feed, fuel, labor, 
and even regulatory compliance represent the greatest threat to 
producer profitability. To put it into perspective, as prices 
have nearly doubled over the last 4 years, my margin is roughly 
the same.
    As Congress explores ways to support cattle producers, I 
would draw your attention to the following points. As I stated 
earlier, much of the support for these high prices is because 
of strong beef demand. One of the greatest tools ever designed 
to grow and maintain beef demand is the beef check-off system. 
This widely supported and successful program uses the pooled 
resources of cattle producers across the country to open new 
markets abroad, drive sales domestically, and conduct research 
into the human nutrition benefits of incorporating beef in a 
healthy diet.
    Cornell University estimates that those who pay into the 
beef check-off see a roughly $13.41 return on every dollar 
invested. Despite this, the check-off has come under fire from 
a small minority of dissatisfied producers whose voices have 
been amplified by the radical animal rights industrial complex. 
The simple fact is this. The beef check-off works. It does so 
with rigorous oversight under producer direction and at zero 
cost to the taxpayer. NCBA urges lawmakers to reject any 
legislative or regulatory attempts to dismantle commodity 
check-off programs.
    Finding and keeping a workforce is another major challenge 
in the cattle industry. Domestic farm labor is extremely hard 
to come by and as a result, we struggle to maintain operational 
certainty. Although programs like H-2A exist to help with the 
farm workforce, it favors crop production because it is 
entirely a seasonal program. The cattle industry needs 
refinements to H-2A to make it a year-round, more successful, 
efficient, and streamlined program.
    NCBA was pleased that the Biden Administration withdrew its 
disastrous rule deceptively titled Fair and Competitive 
Livestock and Poultry Markets. Government handouts and central 
planning is not the solution to market challenges. However 
well-meaning this rule may have been, the fact is it would have 
wreaked havoc on the small producers it was intended to help. 
And this rule is not the only example of that. Whether it is 
the Endangered Species Act, National Environmental Policy Act, 
climate sideboards on conservation programs, or Waters of the 
United States, NCBA urges Congress to rein in regulatory 
overreach everywhere it exists.
    There are many other important issues I simply do not have 
time to address, and I would ask that you please examine my 
written testimony.
    In closing, Mr. Chairman, cattle producers are tough and 
resilient people who tackle new challenges with determination 
and grit. NCBA is ready to work with this Subcommittee, the 
Administration, and anyone to ensure a bright future for the 
next generation of America's cattle producers.
    Thank you, Chairman Mann, and I will now stand for 
questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Sander follows:]

Prepared Statement of Troy Sander, Past Chairman, Live Cattle Marketing 
  Committee, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, Oklahoma City, OK
Introduction
    Chairman Mann, Ranking Member Costa, and Members of the 
Subcommittee, on behalf of America's cattle producers, thank you the 
opportunity to testify before you today.
    My name is Troy Sander. I am the immediate past Chairman of the 
Live Cattle Marketing Committee for the National Cattlemen's Beef 
Association (NCBA), the current President of the Kansas Livestock 
Association, and the Chief Operating Officer at Heritage Beef, LLC, 
which operates feedyards in Kansas.
    I am testifying today on behalf of the National Cattlemen's Beef 
Association (NCBA), the largest and oldest trade association 
representing the U.S. cattle and beef industries. Initiated in 1898, 
NCBA has been the leading voice for cattle producers for over a 
century, shaping the future of our industry. Today, NCBA represents 
more than 25,000 direct members and an additional 178,000 through our 
44 state affiliates. These affiliates are critical in driving our 
policy positions and ensuring that the concerns of cattle producers are 
heard. Over 90 percent of our members are family-owned businesses, 
operating across all sectors of the cattle industry--from cow-calf, 
stocker/backgrounder, and feeding sectors of the supply chain. Each 
member has a direct influence on our policy decisions, made through a 
democratic process of resolutions and directives. This is how NCBA 
forms its stance on legislation and regulations--by listening to those 
who live and work on the ground every day.
State of the Cattle Industry
    The U.S. cattle industry is strong and positioned better than it 
has been in many years. Cattle prices are high, and demand for U.S. 
beef continues to hold both domestically and internationally. It must 
be noted, however, that this success has come without the passage of 
burdensome legislation or excessive regulation in the cattle market. 
Cattle producers navigated the immense difficulties of the COVID-19 
pandemic, demonstrating the industry's ability to adapt, on its own, to 
changing conditions of supply and demand.
    Despite the current positive state of our business, significant 
challenges still remain. The testimony of my fellow NCBA members over 
the years has been similar, all noting that input costs are the 
greatest threat to the solvency of family cattle operations. Progress 
has been made, but the problem still lingers as producers continue to 
battle high interest rates, transportation expenses, feed prices, labor 
costs, and--certainly--the increasing costs of regulatory compliance. 
These issues directly impact profitability, which is the key to 
maintaining the farming and ranching lifestyle. For example, the profit 
margins cattle producers are clearing today on roughly $2.00 fed cattle 
are little different than the margins we were making when live cattle 
were at $1.35 (See Figure 1).
Figure 1. Fed Cattle Break-Even and Price

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

          Source: CattleFax.

    Leadership in Washington has a profound impact on the future of 
America's cattle industry. It is critical to restore common sense to 
regulatory decision-making, and President Trump has demonstrated a 
strong commitment to cutting unnecessary red tape that stifles industry 
growth. For over 125 years, NCBA has remained unshakable in its 
commitment to one fundamental principle: producer profitability. 
Without profitability, producers cannot continue their way of life, nor 
can they sustain their vital role in driving the nation's economy and 
food security. Profitability is not just a financial goal--it is the 
lifeblood of family farms and ranches. It is the very foundation of a 
way of life that is deeply rooted in hard work, dedication, and a 
passion for raising cattle. While profitability is critical, direct 
payments are not the solution. Instead, the focus must be on 
establishing an operating environment that allows producers to succeed 
based on their own innovation, sound business decisions, and ability to 
drive demand from consumers.
    As we confront the pressures of inflation and work toward a future 
that supports the growth and sustainability of cattle operations, NCBA 
wants to highlight the most pressing concerns from producers across the 
country. These issues are not just policy points--they represent the 
livelihood, passion, and dedication of thousands of American cattle 
producers who are committed to feeding the nation and the world. While 
this list is not exhaustive, it addresses many of the issues of the 
highest concern to the cattle industry.
Swiftly Adopt a Farm Bill
    The farm bill is essential to providing stability for America's 
cattle producers, and NCBA strongly supports the progress made by 
Chairman Thompson, whose bill passed out of the House Agriculture 
Committee with bipartisan support. Now, Congress must see this 
framework through to completion. A modern farm bill must address key 
priorities for the cattle industry, including expanding the National 
Animal Vaccine and Veterinary Countermeasures Bank (NAVVCB) to guard 
against Food-and-Mouth Disease (FMD) and other threats. We also support 
stronger risk management tools, ensuring producers have access to 
programs that help them navigate market volatility. We support 
conservation programs that work, including improvements to the 
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and the Conservation 
Stewardship Program (CSP)--keeping them voluntary, incentive-based, and 
beneficial for working lands.
    The farm bill provides a critical level of certainty for ranchers 
and the broader cattle industry. NCBA remains fully committed to 
supporting a strong, producer-focused bill that prioritizes 
profitability and keeps government overreach in check. Congress must 
act now to ensure that cattle producers have the tools they need to 
succeed.
Support the Beef Check-off
    Commodity research and promotion boards, or ``check-offs,'' play a 
crucial role in the success of U.S. agricultural commodities. These 
programs allow producers to pool their financial resources for 
marketing, research, and promotion efforts that support their shared 
commodities. For the beef industry, the Beef Check-off has been 
instrumental in increasing demand, opening new market access, and 
providing consumer nutrition education. These initiatives would not be 
possible without the Beef Check-off, which directly benefits farmers 
and ranchers by creating an effective model for public-private 
partnerships.
    The Beef Check-off, established by law in 1985 and supported by 79% 
of cattle producers in a national referendum, has proven to be an 
invaluable program for the industry. By collecting just $1 per head 
from cattle sales, the Beef Check-off uses these funds to conduct 
research and promote U.S. beef, both domestically and abroad. The U.S. 
Department of Agriculture (USDA) estimates show that every dollar 
invested in the Beef Check-off yields a remarkable return of $13.41 for 
cattle producers. This significant return underscores the program's 
value, which is widely recognized by producers. In fact, when a 
petition circulated from 2020 to 2021 seeking a referendum on the Beef 
Check-off, it failed to gain enough support. Despite a 3 month 
extension to gather signatures, supporters couldn't reach the necessary 
10% threshold, reflecting the broad backing for the check-off among 
those who directly benefit from it. This overwhelming support speaks 
volumes about the check-off's importance and effectiveness in 
strengthening the beef industry.
    Unfortunately, these programs have come under attack from a small 
but vocal minority of dissatisfied producers, whose voices have been 
amplified by the radical animal rights industrial complex. These 
activists and their allies have attempted to gut check-off programs 
with misguided legislation like the so-called ``Opportunities for 
Fairness in Farming Act (OFF) Act,'' (H.R. 1249, 118th Cong.). 
Thankfully, when brought to a vote, legislative measures similar to 
this bill have been overwhelmingly defeated by lawmakers--both 
Republican and Democrats--who understand the value of check-off 
programs and stand with real farmers and ranchers.
    Despite the false claims of check-off detractors, these programs 
are routinely audited to ensure compliance with strict, and reasonable, 
implementation rules and financial regulations. This oversight is done 
both internally and by officials at USDA. Remarkably, the research and 
promotion work done by check-offs, as well as the USDA staffing costs 
to conduct the required oversight thereof, are paid for entirely by the 
check-offs themselves--at zero cost to the taxpayer. This is a model of 
efficiency and coordination.
    NCBA strongly urges Congress to oppose the OFF Act and continue to 
defend the Beef Check-off and other commodity programs that have been 
proven to be successful in promoting agriculture, supporting producers, 
and improving the strength of U.S. commodities both here and abroad.
Bolster Producer Profitability by Cutting Red Tape
    The Federal Government is deeply involved in nearly every aspect of 
the cattle industry, from environmental regulations to market 
oversight. Over time, it has continually tested the boundaries of its 
reach, adding layer upon layer of bureaucracy that increases costs and 
limits producers' ability to make decisions that work best for their 
operations. Our industry is one of precision, requiring careful 
management and long-term planning. Yet every year, new regulations 
create additional burdens. Federal encroachment into private property 
rights, such as through the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and ever-
changing water regulations, has further complicated land management. 
The constant revisions and [rescissions] of Federal expectations make 
it nearly impossible for producers to plan for the future with 
confidence. These regulatory hurdles add costs at every stage of 
production, impacting ranchers, feeders, processors, and ultimately 
consumers.
    NCBA has long supported reducing these barriers to ensure that 
producers and on-the-ground experts have the authority to make 
decisions that best serve their land, livestock, and communities. This 
includes rightsizing Federal policies like the National Environmental 
Policy Act (NEPA) to align with Congress' fiscal responsibility goals, 
improving the ESA to incentivize conservation rather than penalize 
landowners, and ensuring appropriate Federal staffing levels so that 
agencies have the resources necessary to support, rather than hinder, 
the cattle industry. By scaling back unnecessary government overreach, 
we can allow the cattle producers to focus on what they do best--
raising high-quality beef while stewarding the land for future 
generations.
Address the Threat of New World Screwworm
    For over 60 years, the U.S. cattle herd has been free from the 
devastating impacts of New World Screwworm (NWS), a parasite that poses 
a significant threat to all mammals, including humans. However, the 
pest has rapidly spread through Central America and is now present in 
Mexico, bringing a renewed and urgent concern to our nation's 
agriculture and public health.
    NWS causes severe damage to livestock, feeding on open wounds and 
leading to rapid tissue destruction. If left untreated, the effects can 
be fatal in a matter of mere weeks. The speed at which this pest 
spreads is alarming, and its potential to devastate the U.S. cattle 
industry is significant. Beyond its impact on cattle, NWS can also pose 
a threat to humans, making this an issue of both agricultural and 
public health concern. The good news is that NWS can be eradicated 
through a scientifically proven method: the Sterile Insect Technique. 
This involves the release of sterile male flies that mate with wild 
females, leading to a gradual reduction in the population. However, the 
current capacity for sterile fly production is not sufficient to meet 
the demands of such an extensive eradication effort. Without additional 
resources and infrastructure to scale up sterile fly production, we 
risk an uncontrollable spread of this pest across the U.S.
    NCBA calls on Congress, along with our Mexican and Central America 
partners, to address this NWS threat before it reaches U.S. borders and 
escalates into an irreversible crisis. The cattle industry, along with 
other sectors of agriculture and public health, depend on swift and 
decisive action to address this emergent threat.
Keep the Dietary Guidelines for Americans Nutrition Focused and Free 
        from Bias
    Beef is a powerful, nutrient-rich source of protein that plays a 
crucial role in a healthy diet. In just 3 ounces of lean beef, you can 
get 25 grams of high-quality protein and ten essential vitamins and 
minerals for only 170 calories. To match this same amount of protein, 
you would need to consume 382 calories of black beans or 666 calories 
of quinoa. This makes beef not only an incredibly efficient source of 
nutrition but also a delicious one that supports both muscle 
development and overall health. Unfortunately, despite its proven 
benefits, beef's place on the plate is under attack--not because of 
scientific evidence, but due to unscientific recommendations from the 
Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee. These recommendations have been 
influenced by political opinions rather than sound, science-based 
research. The result is that beef, a nutrient-dense protein, is being 
unfairly maligned, while other protein sources with less efficient 
nutritional profiles are being promoted. As the Dietary Guidelines for 
Americans are being finalized, NCBA urges the Committee to exercise 
proper oversight and ensure that the HHS and USDA are led by science, 
not political agenda. The final guidelines must reflect the latest, 
evidence-based research that supports the inclusion of lean beef in a 
balanced diet.
Repeal the Death Tax and Preserve Crucial Tax Provisions
    Family-owned cattle operations play a pivotal role in driving rural 
America's economy. To continue thriving, these businesses need a tax 
system that supports their entrepreneurial endeavors and encourages 
multi-generational growth. One of the most significant threats to these 
operations is the estate tax, commonly known as the death tax. NCBA 
strongly supports the full and permanent repeal of the death tax. A 
recent NCBA tax survey revealed that 61% of respondents would 
experience negative consequences if the death tax relief from the 2017 
Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) were rolled back to pre-2017 levels. For 
many cattle producers, land is their primary asset, not cash. Rising 
farmland values have made it more difficult to avoid substantial loans 
or sell parts of the operation to cover the death tax, which is why 
protecting the stepped-up basis is critical. Without this protection, 
inherited farmland and pastureland could be subjected to a capital 
gains tax, which would significantly increase producers' tax burdens at 
the time of death. Succession taxes are not conducive to growth, and 
failing to repeal the death tax and safeguard the stepped-up basis will 
harm the next generation of cattle producers.
    Cattle producers also rely on vital tax tools such as the Section 
199A Small Business Deduction, Section 179 deduction, and Bonus 
Depreciation. Section 199A enables small businesses, including farms 
and ranches, to deduct up to 20% of qualified pass-through business 
income. According to an Ernst and Young study, this provision supports 
2.6 million jobs and contributes $325 billion to the economy, with 
38,000 jobs in agriculture. Section 199A was designed to allow pass-
through businesses to compete fairly with corporations following the 
reduction of the corporate tax rate in the TCJA. If Section 199A were 
to expire, many farmers and ranchers might face the difficult choice of 
converting to C corporations to benefit from favorable tax treatment, 
despite potentially losing flexibility in other areas.
    Section 179 has long been an essential tool for farmers and 
ranchers, alleviating cash flow issues, reducing effective tax rates, 
and simplifying depreciation record-keeping. The TCJA increased the 
Section 179 deduction limit to $1 million, with a $2.5 million cap on 
equipment purchases. According to the NCBA tax survey, 57% of 
respondents have used Section 179 in the past 3 years, and 45% of those 
respondents said they would have faced an additional tax burden 
exceeding $20,000 without this deduction.
    Bonus depreciation, also known as first-year expensing, allows 
businesses to deduct the full cost of an asset in the year it is placed 
into service. This tool is especially valuable for farmers and ranchers 
when equipment purchases exceed the Section 179 deduction limits. NCBA 
strongly supported the TCJA's updates to Section 179 and Bonus 
Depreciation, as they enabled producers to maximize deductions on 
equipment purchases, keeping more money in their pockets. These 
provisions, when used together, help producers recover costs more 
quickly, thereby reducing taxable income. NCBA's tax survey found that 
44% of respondents utilized Bonus Depreciation within the last 3 years, 
and 31% would have faced an additional tax burden of over $20,000 
without it.
Safeguard the Viability of the Domestic Farm Workforce
    NCBA is dedicated to ensuring both the security of farmers and 
ranchers along the southern border and the stability of the 
agricultural workforce. Labor shortages in production agriculture and 
agribusiness have reached a critical point, threatening rural 
economies, supply chains, and U.S. food security. To address this 
crisis, reforms to the H-2A visa program are needed, including year-
round worker availability, expanded access for processors, and shifting 
oversight from the Department of Labor to the USDA, where agricultural 
needs are better understood. At the same time, protecting livestock, 
land, and the environment from harm along the southern border remains a 
top priority.
Reject Prescriptive Livestock Markets Policy
    Cattle prices have soared to record highs over the past 4 years, a 
direct result of the free market operating without unnecessary 
government interference. During the challenging marketing conditions of 
the COVID-19 pandemic, some claimed that without sweeping Federal 
intervention, producers would never see favorable market conditions 
again. Those claims have been undeniably disproven. Yet, despite this 
clear success of the free market, the Biden Administration continued 
its efforts to interfere in cattle producers' private business 
negotiations.
    From the outset, President Biden and Secretary Vilsack sought to 
expand USDA's power under the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 (PSA), 
particularly by attempting to dismantle the long-standing ``Harm to 
Competition'' standard. This key legal precedent ensures that a 
violation of the PSA occurs only when an action harms overall market 
competition. By maintaining this standard, cattle producers have been 
able to negotiate premiums for the unique characteristics of their 
livestock and beef products, fostering innovation and fair competition. 
The standard has been upheld in Federal courts eight times as 
consistent with Congressional intent, yet the Biden Administration 
pushed forward with efforts to undermine it.
    Over the past 4 years, USDA has introduced five rulemakings under 
the PSA, each based on a flawed interpretation of the agency's 
authority and widely opposed by cattle producers. While the most 
damaging of these, the Fair and Competitive Livestock and Poultry 
Markets rule, was withdrawn at the end of the previous Administration, 
USDA has signaled its intent to revive similar policies. These 
misguided regulations, much like cash trade mandates, would be 
devastating to the cattle industry, threatening the profitability of 
producers nationwide. Congress must remain vigilant in opposing any 
attempt to expand Federal control over private business dealings in the 
livestock sector.
    However, Federal overreach is not the only threat to the free 
market. California's Proposition 12 serves as another example of 
harmful, market-altering policy. While California accounts for just 
under 1% of U.S. pork production, it consumes approximately 13%, giving 
it an outsized influence on the national market. By imposing specific 
and restrictive production standards on pork sold within its borders, 
California has effectively dictated practices to producers in other 
states--an undeniable violation of interstate commerce principles. 
Congress must take action to ensure that no single state has the 
authority to impose regulations that extend beyond its borders and 
unfairly burden producers across the country.
Reauthorize Livestock Mandatory Reporting
    Livestock Mandatory Reporting (LMR) is a crucial market 
transparency tool for cattle producers. Countless cattlemen and women 
across the country utilize the information reported through LMR to 
forecast supply and demand trends, price cattle, and analyze market 
trends. It is the single most accessible and diverse source of timely, 
accurate information available to those who make their business trading 
livestock.
    LMR is required to be authorized by Congress every 5 years. 
Interestingly--and unfortunately--enough, this September will mark the 
5 year anniversary of the expiration of LMR's 5 year authority. Since 
2020, LMR authority has been temporarily extended via the 
appropriations process despite calls from animal agriculture to 
complete this reauthorization for the standard time and in the 
appropriate manner. While we are grateful to have not lost access to 
LMR data since its expiration, NCBA still holds that a full, 5 year 
reauthorization provides the most certainty to cattle producers. We 
urge Congress to prioritize this effort as quickly as practicable.
Prioritize U.S. Beef Trade and Hold Partners Accountable
    The U.S. beef industry is a global leader, with approximately 15% 
of domestically produced beef sold internationally. In 2024, U.S. beef 
exports totaled $10.45 billion, contributing an estimated $415 per head 
of fed cattle slaughtered. Korea, Japan, and China accounted for 58% of 
total sales, reflecting strong global demand for high-quality American 
beef. This success is largely due to trade agreements that have removed 
barriers, allowing U.S. producers to compete effectively. However, 
while competitors in Australia, South America, Canada, and Mexico have 
aggressively pursued and secured new trade agreements, the U.S. 
Government has done little in the past 4 years to expand market access 
for American beef. To maintain a competitive edge, the U.S. must re-
engage in trade negotiations and secure preferential access in fast-
growing markets across Asia, Africa, and the Middle East.
    At the same time, while failing to expand access for U.S. beef, the 
Federal Government has approved imports from multiple countries--often 
without holding those trade partners to the same rigorous standards 
required of American producers. The National Cattlemen's Beef 
Association (NCBA) has raised concerns about Brazil's repeated failures 
to report cases of atypical bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in a 
timely manner. As outlined in multiple letters to the USDA, Brazil's 
reporting delays suggest either incompetence or intentional withholding 
of critical information, neither of which align with the high safety 
standards the U.S. demands from its trade partners. NCBA urged the USDA 
to suspend Brazilian beef imports and conduct a full audit, but the 
agency declined. Similarly, the approval of Paraguayan beef imports has 
raised industry concerns due to outdated risk assessments based on 9 
year old site visits. Given Paraguay's history with foot-and-mouth 
disease (FMD), NCBA called for updated inspections before granting 
market access. Yet, despite strong opposition from U.S. cattle 
producers, the USDA moved forward. The health of U.S. consumers and the 
cattle industry cannot be jeopardized by trade partners with 
questionable safety records. The U.S. must enforce strict import 
standards, starting with the suspension of beef imports from Brazil and 
Paraguay until thorough audits confirm compliance with U.S. food safety 
and animal health regulations.
    In 2024, the U.S. was a net importer of beef, with Brazil being a 
leading supplier of lean trimmings and processed beef products. Brazil 
exports under the annual ``Other Country'' tariff rate quota, alongside 
Paraguay, Japan, the United Kingdom, Ireland, and several European 
nations. This year, Brazil filled its 65,000 metric ton quota by 
January 17, 2025. For the remainder of the year, Brazilian beef will be 
subject to a 26.4% tariff--yet this may not be enough to discourage 
imports. To uphold U.S. food safety and trade integrity, suspending 
imports from Brazil and Paraguay, coupled with thorough audits, may be 
the only effective way to ensure compliance. Additionally, Colombia has 
applied for access to the U.S. beef market, despite having active FMD 
cases and a porous border with Venezuela, a known FMD hotspot. While 
Colombia remains a key U.S. ally, diplomatic ties should not override 
the need for strict animal health standards. Before any market access 
is granted, a comprehensive risk assessment must be conducted in line 
with GAO recommendations.
    The global reputation of U.S. beef is built on safety and quality--
something American producers have worked tirelessly to maintain, 
particularly in the wake of the 2003 BSE case, infamously dubbed ``the 
cow that stole Christmas.'' Protecting this reputation requires 
vigilance in both domestic production practices and international trade 
policies. Currently, there is increasing interest in using vaccines to 
combat high-path avian influenza (HPAI) in U.S. dairy cattle. While 
this approach may offer animal health benefits, it could also trigger 
long-term trade restrictions on U.S. beef, as seen in other countries 
that vaccinate for FMD and similar diseases. The U.S. Government must 
carefully evaluate the potential market consequences before moving 
forward with vaccination policies. While imports account for roughly 
12% of the beef consumed in the U.S., it is critical for domestic 
producers to differentiate their products in the marketplace. NCBA 
welcomed USDA's decision to close a loophole that previously allowed 
misleading origin labels on imported beef.
    As of January 1, 2026, packers and retailers will no longer be able 
to use generic ``Product of USA'' claims on imported beef. Instead, 
under the new voluntary and trade-compliant labeling rules, beef can 
only be labeled ``Made in USA'' or ``Product of USA'' if it comes from 
cattle that were born, raised, harvested, and processed in the U.S. 
These reforms will help American producers stand out in the domestic 
market while catering to growing consumer demand for locally sourced 
beef. To ensure the continued success of U.S. beef, policymakers must 
prioritize expanding market access, enforcing strict import standards, 
and maintaining the industry's reputation for quality and safety. This 
means holding trade partners accountable, preventing risky imports, and 
securing trade agreements that benefit American producers. Without 
decisive action, U.S. beef risks losing its competitive edge in the 
global market.
Analyze the Federal Lands Grazing Programs
    The U.S. beef industry benefits from a diverse cattle supply chain, 
in part due to the vast Federal lands that play a central role in 
raising cattle. In the West, livestock producers collaborate with the 
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) to 
manage approximately 250 million acres of Federal grazing land. Each 
year, around 63% of cattle in the region rely on this crucial forage, 
which not only supports the local cow/calf sector but also contributes 
to a multi-regional beef supply chain. However, the industry has faced 
challenges over the years, especially following the early 1990s, when 
radical environmental groups pushed for a ``cattle-free'' initiative on 
Federal lands, demanding grazing be eliminated by 1993. This movement 
led to significant regulatory changes that reduced livestock grazing on 
Federal lands and increased regulatory burdens on producers. These 
regulatory changes, along with the growing complexities of natural 
resource laws such as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and 
the Endangered Species Act (ESA), have made it more difficult and 
costly for ranchers to operate on Federal lands. The U.S. Forest 
Service (USFS) has also faced similar pressures to reduce grazing, but 
their focus on timber and fire management--rather than grasslands and 
forage--has made it harder for ranchers to maintain grazing operations 
over time.
    Livestock producers leasing Federal lands face a number of 
challenges, including paying a base grazing fee set by Federal law and 
maintaining infrastructure to comply with their grazing permits. 
Maintaining fences, water systems, pipelines, and invasive species 
control is often more expensive than operating on private lands. 
However, ranchers view these costs as a worthwhile investment because 
they benefit directly from the high-quality forage that sustains their 
cattle. Moreover, the environmental and economic advantages of grazing 
Federal lands extend far beyond just cattle production. Many of these 
Federal lands are interspersed with private and state lands, and 
grazing plays a key role in reducing wildfire risk, controlling 
invasive species, and supporting a range of other uses on public lands. 
Studies show that grazing reduces the risk of wildfire ignition by 45-
50%, prevents the spread of invasive grasses, and contributes to 
biodiversity. Additionally, grazing generates billions of dollars in 
ecosystem services, including wildlife habitat, watershed protection, 
and opportunities for wildlife-based recreation.
    Given the multiple benefits grazing provides, the National 
Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA) strongly supports significant 
revisions to USFS and BLM grazing policies to recognize the economic 
and environmental value that private producers bring to Federal lands. 
Furthermore, NCBA advocates for the expanded use of targeted grazing--
especially outside existing grazing allotments--to mitigate wildfire 
risks, which not only threaten cattle production but also have wide-
reaching impacts on the economies of the West.
    Effective Federal lands management is crucial to the long-term 
success of the U.S. cattle industry, and NCBA appreciates this 
Committee's focus on policies that support a strong and resilient 
national beef supply chain.
Conclusion
    To conclude, America's cattle producers are some of the most 
adaptable and resourceful individuals you'll find. They consistently 
demonstrate their ability to overcome challenges, and that will 
continue as they navigate the future. While there is reason for 
optimism compared to previous years, the obstacles we face are still 
substantial.
    If I could make one simple recommendation, it would be this: 
listen. Take the time to hear from cattle producers when they share 
their insights. If they tell you that a program is effective and should 
be expanded, give it serious consideration. If they warn that a bill 
could unintentionally harm their operations, give it the attention it 
deserves. These producers, who are on the ground day in and day out, 
know what works best for the health of our food systems.
    It's a well-known statement around Capitol Hill that ``food 
security is national security,'' and we agree fully. This 
responsibility is something we take with great seriousness and pride. 
We are honored to be part of this vital industry, and we are eager to 
continue working with you to ensure that future generations can count 
on a secure and sustainable food supply. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I 
will now stand for questions.

    The Chairman. Thank you all for your important testimony 
here this morning.
    At this time, Members will be recognized for questions in 
order of seniority, alternating between Majority and Minority 
Members, and in order of arrival for those who joined after the 
hearing convened. You will be recognized for 5 minutes each in 
order to allow all of us to get as many questions in as 
possible.
    To begin, I will recognize myself for 5 minutes. Thank you 
all for being here this morning.
    First question will be for your, Mr. Sander. Can you speak 
to the growth in demand that you are seeing for the cattle 
industry, and what is the outlook overall for prices as you 
think about where the beef industry is today and where it is 
headed?
    Mr. Sander. A lot of the high prices and record high prices 
that we are currently experiencing today go back to just simple 
supply and demand. We are at a point in the cattle cycle which 
occurs about every 5 to 7 years where we see herd reductions, 
because it wasn't so great of an environment a few years back. 
And so, as supplies go down prices go up.
    But I also attribute, as I said in my testimony, a lot of 
our continued robust demand has to go to both the beef check-
off system and also robust export markets as well.
    The Chairman. All right, thank you.
    Next question is for you, Mr. Zimmerman. In your written 
testimony, you stated that the Biden Administration's proposed 
Salmonella Framework lacks a scientific basis and introduces a 
policy that is logistically unfeasible, financially burdensome 
for the industry, and is likely to increase food costs, waste, 
and threaten food security.
    Please expand on the flaws of the proposal, and provide an 
overview of all the important work that the industry is already 
carrying out to reduce the risks associated with Salmonella.
    Mr. Zimmerman. Obviously, food-borne illness is a concern 
for our industry, and we do take many steps and strides to 
mitigate the risks in our processing plants.
    But the proposed framework proposed by the Administration 
is highly flawed and potentially illegal. Salmonella is 
inherent in poultry, and to declare it an adulterant is just 
not legally sound. We take many, many steps to address the 
situation and decrease the loads from farmers like me who 
regularly monitor for Salmonella, to processing plants who have 
many, many steps to try to limit its spread.
    But to go so far as to declare it an adulterant is nearly 
impossible. Bacteria are everywhere. We will do what we can to 
limit the risks, but, to go as far as they have in this rule is 
just not legally or scientifically possible.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Next question for you, again, Mr. West and also Mr. 
Zimmerman, you both know all too well about the havoc that 
high-path has wreaked across the poultry industry. I was 
pleased to see President Trump and Secretary Rollins' 
announcement last week directing additional money to improve 
biosecurity fund indemnity and conduct research on vaccines and 
therapeutics.
    How do you both feel that last week's announcements--how do 
you feel about the announcement and the impact that will have 
on our poultry producers? Maybe we will start with you, Mr. 
Zimmerman, and then let you conclude, Mr. West.
    Mr. Zimmerman. As I outlined, we are very thankful for the 
attention this issue has raised, and we are thankful for the 
plan that has been brought forward. But we want to be very 
clear that this plan needs to address the virus and not just 
one species.
    Turkeys are not just big chickens, and we have our own set 
of concerns, so any plan moving forward, we would hope that 
turkey farmers would also be included, and it would encompass 
the entire spectrum of other species that are also affected, 
dairy cattle, we are seeing it cats, rodents, and other 
species.
    So, the plan needs to be a little bit more holistic and 
address the virus as a whole, but we are thankful for the 
initial steps.
    The Chairman. Okay. Further comments from you, Mr. West? I 
know you talked about some in your testimony, but feel free to 
expand.
    Mr. West. I would echo Mr. Zimmerman's comments. It gives 
us a clear path for our future. A vaccine is another tool in 
our tool chest that we can use. I would like to describe the 
conditions on our farm where we have been hit twice with AI. 
Within 10 kilometers of our ranch, we have 40 dairies. We have 
about ten million broiler chickens. We have about four million 
laying hens, and about 10 miles to the south of us, we have the 
largest nature preserve west of the Mississippi, I believe. So, 
in our particular instance, we believe a vaccine would be very 
helpful, and would ensure the health of those birds in that 
neighborhood.
    The Chairman. Great. Well, thank you all again for being 
here this morning and for your testimony.
    Next, I will recognize Ranking Member Costa for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Costa. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    I don't know, Mr. West, if you want to enhance your 
comments. You talked about your plan and for the record, I 
would like to submit the plan that you are implementing, if 
there is no objection.
    The Chairman. No objection.
    Mr. Costa. Thank you.
    Do you want to expand any more on that, Mr. West?
    Mr. West. Well, are you referring to the working group that 
we have established in our industry?
    Mr. Costa. Correct.
    Mr. West. Yes. We are working on the first draft of that as 
we speak, and as soon as that is ready, we will be ready to 
deliver that.
    Mr. Costa. Good.
    Mr. West. I do not know a timeframe on that. I would 
guess--I don't want to guess, Mr. Costa.
    Mr. Costa. You made your comments, Mr. West, about our 
valleys and critical productivity in terms of not only the 
poultry development in your area, but also the dairy industry. 
You have cooperated--because I know I have represented both 
industries and many others. How is the cooperation going these 
days with over 70 percent of the dairy herds in California 
being impacted by the high-path avian flu? How would you 
describe that relationship?
    Mr. West. I would describe it as friendly, and I would 
describe it as perhaps a little secretive. We know what is 
going on in our farms, and we don't know what is going on, on 
theirs. And we would like to work together with that industry 
and others locally, regionally, nationally to come up with a 
plan.
    In many neighborhoods where you see laying hens, you will 
see dairy cows and you will see a lot of other forms of 
agriculture.
    Mr. Costa. Well, I think that is something we need to 
continue to work on, not just in California but around the 
country, because of the way this high-path avian flu has taken 
shape.
    Do any of you witnesses here care to comment on the impacts 
of potential tariffs on our trading partners in Canada and 
Mexico, and your concerns?
    Ms. Stevermer. Yes, thank you. I can address that question.
    I mean, as I mentioned before, 25 percent of our pork 
products are exported. That adds $66 worth of value. Our 
trading partners like Canada and Mexico are concerned. We 
export--Mexico is our number one market for exports, so any 
type of disruptions, our concern is--especially the retaliatory 
tariffs that might come back to us.
    I think it is also important to note that we, as an 
industry, get young wean pigs from Canada that would be 
affected by that--those tariffs also, which would add costs to 
our producers. These pigs are raised in states like Minnesota 
and Iowa. So, we have a very integrated industry. We work well 
together, and certainly concerned with any type of disruptions 
and retaliatory tariffs that might come our way.
    Mr. Costa. And that is the thing. Each country has the 
ability to invoke retaliatory tariffs, so it is a two-way 
street.
    Anyone else care to comment?
    Mr. Schweitzer. Yes, the U.S. is the largest beef exporter 
in the world. We are also one of the largest beef importers in 
the world. Tariffs hit us both ways on that. In Montana, we 
have a good working relationship with Canada. Most of our 
feeder calves go north to the border to be finished, fed out, 
and many of them come back to the United States to be 
processed. Most of our inputs for growing our feed come from 
Canada. So, these tariffs would have a very adverse impact on 
the cattle ranchers of Montana.
    Mr. Costa. So, you would agree there are taxes on American 
consumers and American producers?
    Mr. Schweitzer. Absolutely.
    Mr. Costa. Thank you.
    I have carried the funding legislation for Animal Health 
Laboratory National Animal Disease and Preparedness, the 
RESPONSE Program, the National Animal Vaccine and Vet 
Countermeasures, and I am proud to continue to carry those 
appropriations.
    Mr. Zimmerman, would you agree that without these critical 
resources, our food supply would be even more at risk?
    Mr. Zimmerman. I would wholeheartedly agree. The first step 
in combating a virus outbreak such as HPAI is surveillance.
    Mr. Costa. So, we need to keep these folks on board and not 
have them terminated, correct?
    Mr. Zimmerman. They were already short-staffed, so any 
further cuts to staff would be detrimental, yes.
    Mr. Costa. I agree.
    Biosecurity continues to be a main pillar in combating 
high-path avian flu, but we also have strong herd health here 
in the United States. Mr. Schweitzer, you mentioned in your 
testimony, you can expand why ear tags and other measuring and 
biosecurity are worthy investments? Quickly comment. I have run 
out of time.
    Mr. Schweitzer. It is, food security is a national 
security.
    Mr. Costa. We both agree.
    Mr. Schweitzer. And herd health is national security. And 
it is definitely important and our herd health is at risk 
without good traceability. It is a public good, and it should 
be--the cost of herd health should be borne by public, not the 
producers, not the feeders, not the packers.
    Mr. Costa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time has expired.
    The Chairman. Next we will recognize the gentleman from 
Nebraska, Mr. Bacon, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Bacon. Thank you. I appreciate y'all being here. 
Question for our beef experts, our pork experts. Can you tell 
me the importance of USMCA to these two industries?
    Ms. Stevermer. Yes, thank you, Mr. Bacon. I love the last 
name there.
    Once again, trade is so important to our industry. I mean, 
when you look at the pork industry, trade helps provide that 
balance. We export more than we import, and so, Mexico is our 
number one export market. They love our pork down there. Canada 
is, I believe, number five. So, both of them are important to 
us, and the work of USMCA has been good for both--all three of 
us countries, I should say, certainly want to continue those 
types of relationships in the future, too.
    Mr. Bacon. How about for our beef?
    Mr. Sander. Yes, we are extremely glad for the export trade 
that we have. We value it at about $425 a head for every animal 
that we produce is the value of exports to us. So, we are 
excited about new markets and expanding current markets, and we 
fully understand that this is a very important part of our 
production system.
    Mr. Bacon. Question for you both, a follow up.
    I understand some retribution towards Mexico. They were 
blocking our corn and doing some other things, but has Canada--
to my knowledge, they have lived up to the USMCA, so I am 
trying just to get my arms around how--I am not sure responding 
to Canada with tariffs is appropriate, but has Canada been 
living up to the USMCA agreement, and if anybody knows 
differently, please let me know.
    Mr. Schweitzer. Well, I believe they have been living up to 
the agreement, but I think the agreement needs a few 
improvements.
    First and foremost, country-of-origin labeling. Second, 
they can dump their grains, wheat especially, into the U.S. 
market, but we are not allowed to export our wheat into the 
Canadian markets. This is clearly an important addition that 
needs to be made to the USMCA.
    Mr. Bacon. That is great input. Anybody else? Okay, go 
ahead.
    Ms. Stevermer. Well, I would just say that the trade and 
exports are complex, and as I mentioned, we get weaned pigs 
from Canada into the U.S. in Iowa and Minnesota, and those are 
good healthy pigs that are harvested in our plants. And so, we 
have an integrated industry, and that is why we need to 
continue to find ways to work together. I realize it may not be 
perfect for all species, but, for the pork industry, it has 
worked well for us.
    Mr. Bacon. One of the big concerns I have, we were a net 
trade exporter 4 years ago. Not a huge trade surplus, but there 
was one. Now, we have the biggest trade deficit in agriculture 
in our history, and I think it is part of the fact is why we 
are nearing a recession in the agriculture sector. That is very 
concerning for me.
    A follow up question to Mr. Sander and Ms. Stevermer. There 
were recent cuts, several cuts to the Meat Animal Research 
Center, otherwise known as the Market in Nebraska, and a lot of 
these researchers lost their jobs. Can you explain the 
importance of our nation's research efforts to agriculture?
    We will start with you, ma'am.
    Ms. Stevermer. I would say all of us in agriculture, 
especially those of us that graduated from land-grant 
universities who want to continue to see that research happen 
there. I mean, that information, that research uncovered helps 
drive our industry. It helps drive the innovation and it is 
important work. It fuels the next, maybe, vaccine, animal 
health program, and so, we need to continue to have that 
support in those areas, yes, so that our industry can continue 
to be vibrant, continue to face the challenges that we have, 
and continue to be a leader in the world.
    Mr. Bacon. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Sander. Yes, our ability to respond--to prevent and 
respond to a foreign disease outbreak is paramount, and it 
would be devastating for our industry. And so, we support 
funding to continue that initiative.
    We were very glad to see the Trump Administration rehire 
Federal employees that are important to protecting the U.S. 
cattle herd, including research from APHIS and employees from 
the USFS.
    Mr. Bacon. As someone who worked hard to get the FMD 
vaccine bank funded back in 2017, I appreciate the great work 
our researchers do, and I think with 4 seconds left, I am going 
to yield it all back to you.
    The Chairman. Very generous, Mr. Bacon. Thank you.
    I now recognize the gentlewoman from Connecticut, Mrs. 
Hayes, for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Hayes. Thank you. Thank you to our witnesses for being 
here today.
    Last month, the President issued an Executive Order 
instructing agencies to plan for large scale reductions in 
force, and fired thousands of probationary employees. To your 
point, the rehiring of those employees would not have had to 
take place if they weren't fired without cause to begin with. 
Loan officers at the Farm Service Agency who help farmers 
secure financial investments to run or expand their operations 
were fired. These firings also impacted the Economic Research 
Service at USDA, which produces reports and data on the farm 
economy.
    In the middle of an outbreak of bird flu, which has led to 
the death of over 165 million birds, President Trump and Elon 
Musk fired \1/4\ of the staff at the National Animal Health 
Laboratory Network Programs, and hundreds of employees at the 
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, which have been 
responding to the spread of the disease. The Trump 
Administration is now struggling to rehire these important 
employees as bird flu spreads from poultry flocks to dairy 
herds in 17 states, and has tragically resulted in at least one 
human death.
    Mr. West, in your testimony you indicated that current egg 
shortages and high egg prices are directly linked to the 
outbreak of bird flu. You also mentioned that the Federal 
hiring freezes left 26 new hires at the National Poultry 
Research Center unsure of whether they were supposed to start 
their jobs. Can you elaborate more on the impact of those 
large-scale firings and hiring freezes, the impact that they 
have on the ability of egg producers to respond to the bird 
flu, and additionally, what resources do farmers need to 
respond and recover from this outbreak and provide stability to 
the egg market?
    Mr. West. I would like to talk about research first. During 
our outbreaks, we had full USDA staff on our farms. We did not 
have anybody that was short labor on our farm during our 
outbreaks. When I talked about labor shortages, I talked about 
techs and labs doing samples for avian influenza or whatever 
other poultry disease they might be looking for. I did not see 
any labor shortages on the farm.
    Mrs. Hayes. But aren't those techs equally as important as 
the people who are actually on the farm in order to combat an 
outbreak of bird flu?
    Mr. West. That is exactly right, and I believe that those 
positions were left untouched, if I am not mistaken, and I am 
going off memory here, ma'am, so I might be wrong.
    Mrs. Hayes. Okay. Well, you can submit that later, but the 
point is making those types of cuts without surgical precision 
and an understanding of the impact that would have would leave 
us in a bad spot, should an outbreak occur that we cannot plan 
for. So, it is not just the workers on the farm, but the 
technicians in the lab and all of those highly specialized 
employees are very important to the lifespan of this process.
    I have another question, but Mr. Schweitzer, you seem to be 
jumping out of your seat. Would you like to respond?
    Mr. Schweitzer. The cuts have had an impact in Montana, no 
doubt about it. Both in predator control for our chief 
industry, and for health of our livestock, and for programs for 
the Montana farmers and ranchers.
    Right now, many farmers are going in to get their operating 
loans renewed, and the bankers are dismissing any support from 
the U.S. Government. If you take that out of our bottom line, 
we are not going to get our loans renewed.
    Mrs. Hayes. Yes, thank you. I can tell you that it has also 
had an effect in Connecticut. I was approached at a parade by a 
father who wanted to tell me the story of his daughter who was 
a shellfish expert, Marine veteran, highly recruited by the 
USDA, and happened to be a probationary employee in that role, 
although she had served 25 years in other agencies and 
departments in a highly specialized field as a shellfish 
expert.
    I will submit my other questions for the record. With that, 
I yield back.
    The Chairman. The chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Indiana, Mr. Baird, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Baird. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member.
    So, I am going to start with Mr. Hopkins. As you know, all 
orphan programs were left unfunded at the end of the last 
Congress. Can you speak to the importance of the orphan 
programs, such as the Sheep Production and Marketing Grants, 
and the need for continued funding?
    Mr. Hopkins. Thank you, Congressman.
    Yes, the orphan programs are critical to the sheep 
industry. The programs, as I understand it, in the past have 
been too small for CBO to score those in a baseline, and as a 
result of that, they always have to be listed in the farm bill 
as separate programs, which creates a lot of problems, 
especially when there is a CR that has to be done.
    Last year in the farm bill that this Committee released in 
May, you combined many of those orphan programs into a--I 
believe it was a Fiber Trust Fund to make sure that they would 
be in the baseline, and we are greatly pleased that you were 
able to do that. And if you could continue to do that in the 
new farm bill, I think we would be very satisfied that that 
problem that has been with us for a while would get resolved.
    Mr. Baird. Thank you. Do any of the other witnesses have 
thoughts in this arena?
    If not, I will move on to Ms. Stevermer. You talk about how 
the U.S. pork industry is dependent on vitamins manufactured in 
China, due to the limited production that we have, and in some 
cases, there being no other country of origin options to meet 
the industry volume demands. While this is not within the 
jurisdiction of the Agriculture Committee, what recommendations 
do you have to Congress for addressing this issue?
    Ms. Stevermer. Yes, thank you for that question, and as I 
did mention, there are certain vitamins, trace minerals and 
amino acids, excuse me, that we can only get from China. And 
so, my ask would be that as we continue to have conversations 
about our relationship with China going forward, to keep that 
in mind because if we are unable to source them, or if the cost 
of those go up significantly, it will impact our producers 
bottom lines.
    Mr. Baird. Thank you. Do any other witnesses have any 
remarks in this regard?
    So, I am going to move on to another area. So, Mr. Sander, 
do you and your organization have any position regarding USDA's 
investments into small and regional meat and poultry processing 
capacity? And given the policy preferences, as a general rule, 
is it preferable to have Congress authorize these programs or 
have Administration do it?
    Mr. Sander. Yes, obviously we will, at some point, end up 
rebuilding our herd. Maybe not to levels that we have seen in 
the past due to inflation and taxes and land values, but we 
will see again a time where we have a large supply of cattle 
that need to go through the processing plants and the packing 
plants. And so, we are absolutely 100 percent supportive of 
programs to help small and regional packers overcome the high 
costs of the startup, and provide more hook space for our 
product.
    Mr. Baird. Do any of the other witnesses have----
    Mr. Schweitzer. Yes. Montana prior to the COVID pandemic, 
we eat about 100,000 head of cattle a year. But we only had the 
processing capacity of about 30,000. We found out during the 
COVID pandemic that we couldn't even feed ourselves, even 
though we raise over two million head of cows. This local 
regional processing is critically important for our food 
security and our national security, and the investments that 
have been made in Montana have increased, almost doubled, our 
processing capacity. But we still have a ways to go because we 
eat 100,000 head. So, if we can process 60,000, we are still 
short 40,000.
    Mr. Baird. Thank you.
    Anyone else? We have about 21 seconds. If not, I yield 
back. Thank you.
    The Chairman. The gentleman yields.
    I now recognize the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Feenstra, for 
5 minutes.
    Mr. Feenstra. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for having 
this Committee hearing. I want to thank our witnesses. I read 
your testimonies and they are very impressive.
    We got some exciting times in the U.S. and what is 
happening in the commodity markets and things like that, but we 
also have some concerns. I am from northwest or western Iowa 
where we have some of the largest livestock production in the 
country, livestock, turkey, egg laying, you name it. We lead in 
these industries, pork, and so forth. But the great problem 
that we are having and worry that we are having is foreign 
animal disease and obviously high-path avian influenza. 
Obviously, it has killed over 140 million birds already. It is 
catastrophic, and we are seeing it getting into cattle. We are 
seeing it get into mice and rats and cats and dogs. I worry--
significantly worry about hogs, which I want to talk about a 
little bit.
    But I am excited that Secretary Rollins came out with a 
robust strategy last week, and this was after a letter that I 
helped lead with others concerning the development from USDA 
and what can be done. Obviously, the investment has to be in 
biosecurity, farm relief, vaccine research, and other 
considerations.
    So, I want to talk to Mr. Zimmerman and Mr. West. 
Obviously, Mr. Zimmerman, National Turkey Federation, thanks 
for being here. I think the world of your organization and what 
you do. I have one of your producers here that is going to go 
with me tonight to hear the State of the Union. And then, Mr. 
West, United Egg Producers, thanks for being here. Obviously, I 
have one of the largest egg producers in the country, 14 
percent of the eggs come from one of my producers, and it is 
great to have you here.
    So, between you two, what areas of research should be our 
priority that we can best implement and move forward on this 
strategy of trying to find a solution to high-path avian 
influenza? Mr. Zimmerman, what are your thoughts on this?
    Mr. Zimmerman. We have come a long way since 2014 when this 
virus first emerged in the Midwest, and we have come a long way 
with our biosecurity. There is still room for improvement and 
any research there obviously is helpful. But we need to do more 
than just biosecurity.
    So, as we look towards a vaccination program, we need to 
research how that can be rolled out, because obviously we are 
not going to be able to jab every bird out there. It is just 
not possible.
    Mr. Feenstra. No.
    Mr. Zimmerman. But what birds should we protect first? I 
mean, egg layers maybe, maybe our breeding stock. But we have 
to have those discussions of how a vaccine could be 
implemented, and we also have to address the trade issues, 
obviously, to make that happen.
    Mr. Feenstra. Is that going to be the big issue? The trade 
issue concerns me a lot. So, you start vaccinating--it is 
different for egg layers, but for turkeys, is this going to be 
a big issue for you?
    Mr. Zimmerman. It can be a big issue. We have to weigh how 
many birds are we depopulating versus how large our export 
markets are, and we are at that point.
    Mr. Feenstra. Yes.
    Mr. Zimmerman. So, we really need to look into how we can 
vaccinate and not harm trade.
    In 2014, we know the CVOs got together and discussed this 
issue and alleviated a lot of the trade concerns. So, we would 
hope that in the future, we could have those discussions so we 
can start concentrating and looking at vaccines, because 
honestly, I think that is our path forward.
    Mr. Feenstra. Yes, I agree. I had a couple turkey farms get 
hit in Buena Vista County and Sac County and stuff like that. 
We have to get our arms around this. We can't continue to 
euthanize and indemnify. I mean, we have to find solutions, and 
I appreciate that.
    Mr. West, we have had a lot of discussions on this topic. 
Worried. What are your thoughts? What can we do to move 
forward? What is a solution here?
    Mr. West. Well, there are a lot of solutions and there 
needs to be research at every level of this virus. I spoke in 
my testimony about a working industry group working with the 
USDA and working through some of these issues. Chief among them 
for our industry is when and where do we vaccinate the birds, 
and at what age and what facility? Do we do it at a hatchery? 
Do we do it in a brooder house where we take a day-old baby 
chick and raise her to 16 to 17 to 18 weeks? Do we do it there? 
We do not want to do it in a lay house. It would be 
operationally nearly impossible.
    Mr. Feenstra. That is right, it would.
    Ms. Stevermer, what is your thoughts? I am worried about it 
getting into hogs. Obviously, we are worried about African 
swine fever, but where do you see this moving forward and how 
can we all work together and find a solution here?
    Ms. Stevermer. I would just say it goes back to our three-
legged animal health stool that we talked about, the importance 
of the labs that are doing the diagnostic work, the 
surveillance that we have in place there, and also our 
biosecurity. So, it is upon all of us as an industry, as 
livestock industries to be in communication with each other. I 
know our staff veterinarians are on those calls on high-path, 
and making sure that our lab capacity is there and that we have 
the science and innovation to work on vaccines.
    Mr. Feenstra. Thank you. Thanks for your testimonies.
    Thank you, and I yield back.
    The Chairman. The Chairman recognizes the gentleman from 
New York, Mr. Riley, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Riley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
    I want to follow up on what my colleague was talking about 
with bird flu. It is very, very concerning for a lot of 
reasons. We just had a bird flu outbreak in Ulster County in my 
district in January. We had another one in Delaware County just 
last week. And of course, we have seen what has been happening 
with egg prices.
    So, Mr. West, I wanted to ask you this question. I share 
your concerns about the damage this virus is causing, and I 
agree with colleagues on both sides of the aisle that we really 
got to get it under control.
    I am an original cosponsor of the bipartisan bill that 
Congressman Costa and others are leading, the Healthy Poultry 
Assistance Indemnification Act (H.R. 1376), and my 
understanding is under current law, farmers will get 
compensated if they have to depopulate a farm where bird flu is 
found, but that the folks who are in the surrounding control 
areas also have to take measures, but they don't get 
compensated. And so, our bill would allow them to be 
compensated for the economic impacts that they face.
    I know that this bill is supported by the American Farm 
Bureau Federation, the National Chicken Council, and the United 
Egg Producers, and I was just hoping you could take a couple 
minutes to make the case for folks here why this bill is so 
important.
    Mr. West. Well, the control zone in each neighborhood--let 
me describe the process. When there is an avian influenza case, 
there is a circle around that farm. It can be 5 kilometers, it 
can be 10 kilometers, and permitting needs to be done through 
those areas. If you have a poultry farm in that area, you would 
have to do increased testing. You would have to jump through a 
few different hoops to get your products moved. So, we would 
support anything that would support that farmer next door to 
getting his product moved.
    Mr. Riley. I appreciate that.
    Ms. Stevermer, I had a question about in your testimony you 
talked about how American farmers are forced to rely on China 
for a lot of vitamins, and you listed some things like 
B12, thiamine, folic acid, that are made almost 
exclusively in China. You said that China makes about 80 
percent to 100 percent of various other vitamins. I am just 
curious, why exactly is that the case, and are there things we 
should be doing with American public policy to start trying to 
lessen our dependence on China for this stuff?
    Ms. Stevermer. I would say that process happened through 
time. As the economic and environmental pressures were here in 
the U.S. on those particular manufacturing plants, they went 
elsewhere into China. And so, I don't have a specific answer. 
If there were any plants that were going to be built, it is 
going to take time to get those built and then permitting for 
that to happen.
    So, I think in the meantime, once again, keeping in mind 
that they come from China, many of those trace minerals and 
amino acids, and continue to have that thought in mind when we 
have conversations on our relationship with China.
    Mr. Riley. But there is not, like, some sort of structural 
or scientific or technical reason we are depending on China for 
this stuff? Like we could if we put our minds to it and made 
the investments, we could--scientifically we could probably do 
this here in America? Is that your sense?
    Ms. Stevermer. Correct. Correct, yes.
    Mr. Riley. Yes, okay. It just seems like--I mean, this is 
the thing across so much of the country, and certainly in my 
district in Upstate New York where we have been--the economy 
has just been hollowed out because we have ceded ground to 
China and other competitors around the world. We used to make 
stuff in America, and something as simple--I guess I shouldn't 
say as simple. I am sure making vitamins is probably very 
complex scientifically, but when are you telling me that 100 
percent of these vitamins that our farmers need we are 
depending on China for that, that makes no sense to me. And so, 
maybe we could look into ways to start making stuff in America 
again.
    I will yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Messmer [presiding.] Thank you.
    I now recognize the gentlewoman from Indiana, Mrs. Miller.
    Mrs. Miller. Illinois.
    The Chairman. Oh, Illinois.
    Mrs. Miller. We are neighbors.
    Thank you all for being here. I really appreciate hearing 
from producers.
    As a cattle producer myself, I understand the importance of 
promoting American beef and protecting our food safety in the 
country. I am concerned that other countries don't live up to 
the standards that the United States has for, say, raising 
cattle.
    Mr. Sander, do you share these concerns when it comes to 
the importation of beef from other countries such as Brazil and 
Paraguay?
    Mr. Sander. We do spend a lot of our time talking about the 
value of exports to our business, and probably need to also 
spend as much time talking about imports. And as you mentioned, 
Brazil and Paraguay enjoy beef access to the U.S. market, but 
this needs to be immediately ceased, in our opinion, because 
they have proven they are either unable or unwilling to adhere 
to global animal health and food safety standards that we are 
held to here in the U.S.
    Mrs. Miller. Thank you, and I do find it troubling that 
United States is importing so much beef from other countries 
that put the U.S. cattle herd at risk for counteracting 
dangerous diseases such as foot-and-mouth disease. Could you 
explain to us what would happen in the U.S. if there was an FMD 
outbreak, and why it is so important to protect our cattle from 
these diseases?
    Mr. Sander. As it currently stands, if we would be 
devastated with such an outbreak, there would immediately be a 
minimum of a 72 hour stop movement on cattle. And as you all 
are aware, we have a perishable product and we can't stop the 
production process. The process needs to move. And so, among 
other costly devastating effects, that would be the one 
obviously that would happen quickly, and we just can't stand to 
have that type of a disease enter our shores.
    Mrs. Miller. Last, the USDA January cattle inventory report 
showed us that the cattle inventory in the U.S. has been at its 
lowest since 1995. What can Congress do to support cattle 
producers to get that number back up, and for us to have a 
thriving beef market?
    Mr. Sander. So, at the end of the day in the cattle 
business, we are margin managers and there are three ways that 
you can help protect your margins. And that is pay less for 
your input costs, produce your product more efficiently, or 
sell it for more. And keeping burdensome costs and burdensome 
government overreach in check, and helping us to reduce our 
costs in the production process is absolutely what we need to 
help us stay profitable and manage our margins.
    Mrs. Miller. Yes, and we know inflation is driven by out of 
control government spending and energy costs, so we're gonna 
ramp that back.
    Mr. Sander. I absolutely agree.
    Mrs. Miller. Ms. Stevermer, you mentioned that the pork 
industry is suffering from a shortage of labor across sector. 
What changes to the H-2A program would you believe would make 
the most difference?
    Ms. Stevermer. For us, making the H-2A program year-round, 
having those be year-round foreign-born workers would be key. 
Our pigs don't just grow for 9 months. We need workers 12 
months of the year. So, that year-round access to those H-2A 
workers would be key.
    Mrs. Miller. Thank you, and I yield back.
    Mr. Messmer. Thank you.
    I now recognize the gentleman from North Carolina.
    Mr. Davis. Thank you so much.
    I would like to thank in particular Chairman Mann and 
Ranking Member Costa for organizing this important Subcommittee 
hearing today. The topic is very important for eastern North 
Carolina. Livestock sales are 49 percent of agriculture sales 
in North Carolina's First District, over $23 million in 
livestock inventory. The financial situation of our producers 
is top of my mind every day. In eastern North Carolina, our top 
industry is agriculture, to be clear. The jobs tied to the 
agriculture industry directly support--and we know this--the 
local grocery store, the local banks, the local tractor store, 
and many, many others.
    Over the course of this last weekend, I was fortunate 
enough to be able to go out to Nooherooka Natural Farm. It is a 
seventh-generation family-owned and operated farm, and we did a 
ribbon cutting. And I am saying this to say I believe strongly 
that we need to do everything possible to keep our farmers and 
producers in business, and get financial standing so that they 
can continue to feed and clothe the American people.
    We talked about animal health today over the course of this 
hearing. It remains in the news, so I am going to come back to 
the topic of HPAI, the outbreak. The bird flu epidemic 
continues to be top of mind. That raises the fear of producers 
back home that others could spread, and that it could jump from 
one livestock to another. Staffing shortages, as we have also 
alluded to, these are not easing fears.
    I want to specifically narrow down my question here to Mr. 
Zimmerman. USDA Secretary Rollins recently announced USDA's 
HPAI strategy and turkey seems to not be included. I would like 
to know how has the turkey industry been affected and what 
would inclusion mean?
    Mr. Zimmerman. Well, thank you. We hope it was just an 
oversight. Obviously, the price of eggs is in the spotlight 
now, so we hope that turkey will be included in the future.
    Turkeys are a more long-lived bird, and so, they have more 
time to be exposed to the virus. And so, our industry as a 
whole--and nothing to denigrate the damage to the egg industry, 
but we have been hit really hard and we were some of the first 
to be hit in the previous outbreaks in 2014 and 2015.
    So, we just wanted to be included and I think the major 
point is that we need to treat this as a virus, not as a 
specific species. This is in dairy cattle. It is in cats. It is 
mice. It is in chickens. It is in ducks. And so, any solution 
to this virus needs to be holistic in approach and include all 
of us so we can all be rid of this terrible virus.
    Mr. Davis. Thank you so much.
    I am going to see how we can do with the last 2 minutes of 
my time here.
    I would love to hear from all of the witnesses, if you can 
just keep it like to a sentence, a one-liner that could capture 
what concerns, if any, do you have about the impact of a 
potential retaliatory tariffs? Whichever way you want to start.
    Mr. Zimmerman. I will start. We import a lot of our baby 
turkeys and our eggs from Canada, so obviously imports rising 
and then Mexico is our largest trading partner. Obviously that 
is a great concern that we--in a time when we are very--in a 
very stressful time, we can't afford to lose those exports and 
have our import prices increase.
    Ms. Stevermer. I would say our farmers are very concerned 
with retaliatory tariffs. We went through a longest period of 
unprofitability, lost average of $30 a head. We are starting to 
make a little bit of money now. Any type of retaliatory tariff 
that disrupts that market affects our profitability, and that 
is concerning.
    Mr. West. Very negligible amount of product moves across 
our borders. We don't import or export many eggs at all, so 
this will have little impact on the egg industry.
    Mr. Schweitzer. The commodity prices that are so low this 
year and last is in large part due to the last trade war. Our 
largest customers were impacted during that trade war, and they 
looked for alternative markets. In 2024, we had an average crop 
but we lost our average market. And so, our commodity prices 
tanked because of this. It does have an impact and it has a 
long-range impact because our customers have built ports, rail, 
and other distribution networks to purchase their products from 
our competitors.
    Mr. Sander. We obviously are aware of the tariffs and as 
this Administration works to negotiate equitable trade 
agreements, we would hope that they also look at possible other 
export opportunities for our product as well.
    Mr. Davis. Well, thank you for getting through that line of 
questioning, like 17 seconds over. You all are just as good as 
Members of Congress.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Messmer. I now recognize the gentleman from Minnesota 
for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Finstad. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would also like 
to thank Chairman Mann for holding this important hearing 
today, and thank you to the witnesses for taking the time to be 
here with us.
    Southern Minnesota is a top region for livestock 
production, and as I stated earlier, we are a pork powerhouse 
and we are very proud of that. It is an honor to represent the 
hardworking men and women who put high quality, nutritious 
protein on our tables.
    With that being said, Ms. Stevermer, Prop 12. It has 
wreaked havoc on the marketplace and it has hurt small- and 
medium-sized producers. The fallout will only lead to increased 
consolidation as the largest producers are better equipped to 
conform to its arbitrary and unscientific requirements. In 
simple terms, can you explain to the Committee why it is 
completely backwards to think Prop 12 is anything but 
detrimental to pork production agriculture?
    Ms. Stevermer. Well, first of all, I want to thank Chairman 
Thompson for his work on language with Prop 12.
    What makes it somewhat chaotic and backwards is the fact 
that while I am fine with states regulating production 
practices within their own state, it does not make sense for 
states to regulate production practices in other states. The 
fear that our producers have is that patchwork of regulations, 
and it doesn't matter what size you are, small or medium. You 
feel that effect, and it is hard to make business decisions and 
the chaos that it is causing is concerning.
    I would say also, I have farms and producers that come up 
to me and say I don't know if the next generation wants to come 
farm because look at this chaos. If one state can tell another 
state what to do, and down the road maybe that happens again 
and we have multiple states and multiple regulations, how do I 
deal with that? Why would I want to deal with that? Why do I 
want to come back and farm? And I think that is very 
disappointing for people that produce wholesome, nutritious 
protein.
    I will also say it is chaotic because it raises food 
prices. The people in California are paying, on average, 20 
percent more for pork. That makes no sense. That makes no 
sense.
    Mr. Finstad. Thank you for that, and in a follow up to 
that, so in the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2024 
that we passed in a bipartisan manner through the Agriculture 
Committee, we had a fix included for Prop 12. And you alluded 
to it, but do you support that fix and the language in that 
bill?
    Ms. Stevermer. We do support that, yes.
    Mr. Finstad. All right, thank you for that.
    Maybe one last thought, and Mr. Riley from New York brought 
this up and I think it is a very, very good point. We have all 
our eggs in one basket when it comes to some inputs on the pork 
production side, and quite frankly, livestock production in 
general. But if you look at the amino acids, the vitamins, the 
minerals, it is scary to think that we all agree and say food 
security is national security, but yet, we don't have a 
domestic fix to diversify our inputs. And so, if we were to, 
from a Congressional bipartisan standpoint, work on ways to 
reignite domestic production of amino acids, vitamins, things 
that are so critical to our food and national security, would 
the pork industry be supportive of that?
    Ms. Stevermer. I would say we would. I mean, it is, as you 
said, having all our eggs in one basket is not ideal, and 
working through any regulatory and environmental conditions 
that might be out there I think is important to making sure 
that we can build that industry back again.
    Mr. Finstad. Yes. So, to that point, I mean, these are 
self-inflicted wounds that we have put on ourselves, right? So, 
we have regulated ourselves out of the marketplace to the point 
where our only conclusion is our customer or our--the deal is 
to be made with China. And so, I think it is high time that we, 
again, in a bipartisan manner work together to figure out how 
we can bring some of this production back to the United States.
    Mr. Zimmerman, I think of you often. You are a second-
generation farmer, and most of your adult life you have lived 
as a farmer through very tough times. And so, you look at the 
perfect storm we have going on now with high-path avian 
influenza and aMPV. How have these diseases separately impacted 
the economic livelihoods of Minnesota turkey growers, and what 
advice would you provide Members of Congress and the USDA, and 
how can we best combat these impacts simultaneously?
    Mr. Zimmerman. As I said in my oral testimony, this has 
been a one-two punch to our farmers. I am seeing the next 
generation of turkey farmers just throw up their hands. They 
can deal with one thing. HPAI has been great because there has 
been indemnity. With aMPV, there has been no indemnity. So, 
including the aMPV in the Livestock Indemnity Program would go 
a long way to provide some assurances to the next generation 
that there is some support there when they have these types of 
viral outbreaks.
    But more importantly, let's find a solution. When we have 
been dealing with HPAI since 2014, it is time to move on. We 
spent the money on biosecurity. We need to look at vaccination. 
We need to get the trade issues straightened out, and we need 
to work towards a long-term solution, because we cannot 
survive. We will not have a poultry and egg industry in this 
country if we have to continue to live with HPAI.
    Mr. Finstad. Well, I have seen your kids and the way they 
love farming, and we owe it to them to get this right to give 
them hope so they can be the third generation to take over your 
farm.
    So, with that, I yield back.
    Mr. Messmer. I now recognize the gentleman from California 
for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Gray. Thank you, Chairman Mann, Ranking Member Costa. I 
appreciate you calling today's hearing, and thank you to our 
witnesses. It has certainly been an informative discussion. A 
special welcome to my good friend and constituent, Mr. West. 
Nice to see you on the other side of the country here and see a 
friendly face.
    Mr. West. Thank you.
    Mr. Gray. Yes. I represent one of the largest dairy and 
poultry districts in the country, and certainly share a lot of 
the concerns that have been raised here today.
    With the depopulation of over 160 million birds and the 
impact to consumers and wholesale prices and everything else, I 
mean, there is a lot to be concerned about. And frankly, some 
of the chaotic activity that I have experienced since my 
arrival here in Congress 2 months ago hasn't always reassured 
me that we are doing what we need to do.
    Having said that, I certainly think the $100 million 
funding that Secretary Rollins has announced and is moving 
forward with is the bright spot in this. Mr. West, you and I 
have talked about extensively the importance of the vaccination 
strategy, right? I am hoping--well, I am just curious if you 
could lay out for us what you think--how those funds can best 
be utilized, and what we can do as Members of this Committee 
and Members of Congress to best utilize our time to support 
those efforts and make sure that we do have an effective 
response strategy? Because like I said, there is certainly a 
lot to be concerned about.
    So, if you could walk me through your thoughts on the best 
use of those funds and how we can best support that.
    Mr. West. Absolutely. Thank you for the question.
    I think those monies need to be spent everywhere around 
avian influenza, Mr. Gray. I think that it needs to start with 
industry groups, and I have said, I believe twice this morning, 
that we have established an industry group that is really 
excited about meeting with USDA and getting an action plan put 
in place. We need to be looking at things like monitoring out 
there in the field. We need to look at test results. We need to 
manage processes on the ground that we don't have guidance for 
at this point. And I think it makes it that much more important 
for us to work with government to make a clear path for 
everybody. Nobody wants high egg prices. Nobody wants empty egg 
shelves in the grocery stores. We want this problem to be over 
with, and I think if we work together, we can sure do that.
    Mr. Gray. I appreciate that, and I will open up the 
question to the rest of the panel. Just a sense of what 
barriers or hurdles do you all see that we can be helpful in 
clearing as we head down this path? Open-ended question to any 
members. Sir?
    Mr. Zimmerman. Surveillance is key, and fully staffing our 
surveillance teams at the state level is very important. 
Because if we don't know where the virus is, we can't even 
begin to control it.
    I know recently in Minnesota that some funding has been 
frozen and our state is wondering how we are going to continue 
to even do basic surveillance for HPAI. So, that is key number 
one.
    But then our strategic initiative, which I outlined in my 
written testimony, again, it is very similar to what Mr. West 
is talking about. Getting the best and brightest in the 
industry together and coming up with solutions, and looking at 
how we can use potential solutions such as vaccination to 
finally rid ourselves of this virus. It is going to take a lot 
of time and effort to come up with that plan, and we need some 
help getting the people together to formulate those solutions.
    Mr. Gray. I appreciate that.
    Thank you all for your efforts, and please consider my 
office a friend and ally in addressing this very, very serious 
situation.
    Thank you all, and I will yield back the rest of my time, 
Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Costa. Mr. Chairman, may I raise a point of order?
    Mr. Messmer. Go ahead.
    Mr. Costa. I would like to enter into the record a Milk 
Producers Council of California letter that was addressed to 
me. I made reference to it in my opening comments, but the 
impacts of the poultry industry and the dairy industry with 
high-path avian flu and the dairy industry, like the poultry 
industry, has been made available to participate and file for 
emergency assistance for livestock, honey bees, and other farm-
raised animals, and so, that is helpful with the ELAP 
application for milk losses due to high-path. However, the hope 
has been put on hold to a stop in payments for USDA, and Milk 
Producers Council wanted to raise that to our attention. If we 
can enter the letter into the record, I would appreciate it.
    Mr. Messmer. Thank you for the--it will be entered. Thank 
you.
    [The letter referred to is located on p. 72.]
    Mr. Messmer. I now recognize the gentleman from North 
Carolina.
    Mr. Harris. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all 
of you that have been very patient on the panel today.
    There have been a series of questions that popped up again 
about California's Prop 12, and just for the record, we know 
California's Prop 12 requires pork producers to increase space 
for their sows if they want access to the California market. It 
effectively banned gestation crates, a common enclosure used by 
the industry to protect sows and piglets during pregnancy and 
after birth.
    The premise of this law implies that hog farmers don't want 
their animals to be healthy and safe, and I would just ask Ms. 
Stevermer, do you find that that is the case with the producers 
that you interact with?
    Ms. Stevermer. The producers I interact with work closely 
with their veterinarians and consultants to make the best 
choices for their farming operation based on their management 
style. And Prop 12 is not based on any scientific measures. It 
was a number pulled out of the hat, and once again, we--
producers in other states had no opportunity to provide 
feedback, and yet it affects us. So, that is part of our 
concern is that patchwork and that over-regulation on our 
industry.
    Mr. Harris. So, California's law also seems to take an 
entirely different approach to animal safety than longstanding 
producer and veterinarian practices, and I wonder if you could 
confirm if there was any science really put in behind this 
decision?
    Ms. Stevermer. No science put behind it, just arbitrarily 
picked out a number of 24\2\.
    Mr. Harris. Okay.
    Well, I understand Prop 12 went into effect just about a 
year ago, and I wonder if you could take a few moments to talk 
about the extremely difficult decisions that producers are 
facing on whether or not they comply with the forced mandate 
from California, or try their best to find another market to 
sell into, both of which are extremely costly in the process. 
Can you talk a little more about that?
    Ms. Stevermer. Yes, producers are making business 
decisions, whether they should incur costs to comply to Prop 
12, and while there may be some premium involved with that, 
there is no guarantee that premium is going to last for a long 
period of time. Plus, there is no guarantee that there is not 
going to be another state's regulation come along with a 
different square footage that would affect their businesses. 
So, irregardless if you are small, large, medium, compliant, 
noncompliant, you are concerned about that patchwork of 
regulations.
    I would say that it has gone beyond the U.S. Our trading 
partners, Mexico and Canada, are concerned about Prop 12. It is 
disruptive. I mentioned earlier that we bring piglets down from 
Canada into the U.S. Minnesota and Iowa are a couple of states 
that get a lot of those piglets. Canadian producers are 
affected by Prop 12 then, and so they are just struggling to 
see how that can affect them in the chaos.
    And I will state it again that within California, the USDA 
Chief Economist studies show that pork prices rose 20 percent, 
so it is affecting us as producers. Our costs are going up, but 
it is affecting consumers also.
    Mr. Harris. Thank you, and I think you make a great point 
about worrying that there is going to be continued 
fragmentation in state laws if Congress fails to act, and I 
think that is going to be critically important.
    I want to turn to Mr. Sander, if I may, for just a moment. 
I did note in your testimony that California's Proposition 12, 
which largely focused on the hog industry, is of huge concern 
to National Cattlemen's Beef Association and its members. I 
wonder if you could take a moment just to explain why this is 
so worrisome to you and other livestock producers?
    Mr. Sander. Thank you for the question.
    It becomes concerning for us when a state that produces 
less than one percent of the domestic hog production in the 
U.S. starts dictating animal husbandry practices to the rest of 
the country. We believe in the cattle industry that--I 
personally have spent the last 50 years--I am not that old, but 
I started really young, learning how to do a good job of 
raising livestock, animal handling, and animal husbandry 
practices. We are literally the original stewards of the land 
and of the animals, and we believe that those decisions need to 
be made with us, not just one state.
    Mr. Harris. Well, thank you very much, and Mr. Chairman, 
with that, I will yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Messmer. Thank you. I now recognize the gentleman from 
New Mexico.
    Mr. Vasquez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ranking 
Member. I appreciate the ability to waive onto today's 
Subcommittee hearing. I represent New Mexico's second district, 
the chili capital of the world. We produce the largest amount, 
over half of the country's onions in June and July, and we are 
also home to the Wild Turkey Grand Slam. You can hunt a Rio 
Grande, Merriam's, and a Gould turkey in my district, which I 
am very proud of.
    However, we are here today to talk about livestock and 
dairy, two really critical industries to my district as well. 
Now, we have over 9,000 ranchers that raise over 1.2 million 
head of cattle and contribute over $2 billion to the New 
Mexican economy. They hold 2,200 allotments across 
approximately 13.5 million acres of public lands across the 
state.
    However, oftentimes these ranchers are confronted with 
unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles that hinder their ability to 
do their jobs efficiently. That is why I am proud to have 
introduced the bipartisan Ranching Without Red Tape Act of 2025 
(H.R. 2238), which would cut through excessive regulatory 
delays and provide ranchers with the flexibility that they need 
to make simple but critical improvements on their Federal 
leases.
    So, my question is to Mr. Sander. Mr. Sander, can you give 
me a few examples of range improvements that would trigger a 
lease renegotiation?
    Mr. Sander. Yes, thank you for the question.
    As I said, our operations are in Kansas, so we don't graze 
many Federal lands. But we do buy from a lot of folks in the 
West that graze over more than 60 percent of the herd grazes 
Federal lands, and the ranchers who manage those permits, as I 
said earlier, are some of the original stewards of this land. 
And they know how to take care of land. They are responsible 
for maintaining water troughs, pipelines, and fences are really 
good examples of that for you.
    Mr. Vasquez. Thank you, Mr. Sander, and I completely agree 
with you. And that is why I believe my legislation is so 
important, and it makes common sense to cut through that red 
tape and cut through those regulations, and not have to 
renegotiate a lease with the BLM or another Federal land 
management agency. Is this something that you would commit to 
working with me to help pass this legislation?
    Mr. Sander. Absolutely.
    Mr. Vasquez. Thank you so much.
    It is also important to emphasize that this bill is not 
about shortcuts or sacrificing environmental oversight.
    However, there is another bill I want to get to before my 
time expires today, also another bipartisan bill I have 
introduced called the Grazing for Wildfire Risk Reduction Act 
(H.R. 1110) with Mr. LaMalfa. We know that well-managed grazing 
plays a crucial role in wildfire mitigation by reducing fuel 
loads. The Grazing for Wildfire Risk Reduction Act would make 
it easier for ranchers to access public lands to reduce some of 
those fuels and prevent catastrophic wildfires like those in 
New Mexico, two of the largest that we have seen in just the 
last year alone.
    Mr. Sander, from your perspective, how would targeted 
grazing in these areas of increased fuel loads both contribute 
to wildfire prevention, overall land health, and help ranchers?
    Mr. Sander. Again, we have learned a lot over the years, 
over many, many years of how the symbiotic relationship between 
grazing cattle and the environment can work amazingly well at 
helping to not only reduce the undergrowth and the fuel that is 
there for fires, but also slow down the flames in the process 
if and when a fire does ignite. We are 100 percent supportive 
of this initiative as well.
    Mr. Vasquez. Thank you so much, Mr. Sander.
    And look, one of the things I appreciate about serving on 
this Committee is we get to work with our colleagues on common 
sense legislation that we hope eventually makes it into a 
viable farm bill as a vehicle to get this passed. And so, I am 
looking forward to working with my Republican colleagues on 
both of these initiatives, and certainly anticipate and look 
forward to the support from the livestock industry, cattle 
growers in my state who also support both of these pieces of 
legislation as well, and that supports livelihoods in rural 
communities.
    Now, I look forward to continuing this important work. 
Thank you all so much for being here today, and I look forward 
to having further discussions in full Committee for both of 
these bills.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Messmer. Thank you. I will now recognize myself for 5 
minutes.
    Thank you all for sharing your time and insight to this 
Committee. Obviously, avian flu is top of mind for many Members 
of the Subcommittee here today.
    I am encouraged by Secretary Rollins's timely response to 
the issue, and with Indiana being the fourth largest producer 
of turkeys in America, I am hopeful the USDA avian flu response 
will expand to support our turkey farmers.
    Mr. Zimmerman, American farmers are the most efficient 
turkey producers in the world, but in your testimony, you 
mentioned that pressures like animal disease are pushing them 
out of business. What policies can Congress consider to keep 
our turkey farmers on the map, and is the primacy of American 
turkey production at risk if Congress does not prioritize these 
issues?
    Mr. Zimmerman. Thank you.
    Specifically concerning aMPV, including that in the 
Livestock Indemnity Program will go a long way to adding 
certainty to our industry. One of the major concerns I hear 
from younger growers right now is they aren't able to get 
financing because their bankers don't know how they can survive 
with losing 30, 40, 50 percent of their flocks. So, providing 
that certainty that there is a backstop to these losses would 
be a godsend to our industry.
    Outside of that, just certainty in our high-path avian 
influenza response. As I mentioned, staffing to make sure that 
we are actively surveilling for this virus, and I am very 
thankful that USDA now has a very concrete plan to move 
forward, and we do hope that turkey is also included in that 
plan. But that provides a lot of hope to our growers that maybe 
there is some light at the end of this tunnel, because God 
knows we can't survive doing the same old thing we have been 
doing for the last 10 years.
    Mr. Messmer. Thank you.
    Recently, egg prices have been all over the news. Egg 
prices are high and are an anomaly in Indiana, but in one state 
in particular that has grown used to high food prices. Since 
passing Prop 12, residents of California have been subject to 
historically high cost of protein, and now Californians are 
unable to cushion themselves from the impact of supply 
shortages.
    But this state initiative has trickle-down effects, 
impacting farmers in my district 2,000 miles away. Ms. 
Stevermer, if Congress fails to include a solution to Prop 12 
in the upcoming farm bill, what implications will there be for 
our farmers and the purchasing power of consumers, and the 
integrity of our food supply, especially under strains like 
animal disease?
    Ms. Stevermer. If we don't address Prop 12 and the 
patchwork of regulations is allowed to continue across the 
country--so, if one state puts in a regulation that is slightly 
different than the next one, and now all of a sudden we as an 
industry are trying to market our pigs and raise our pigs to a 
variety of regulations, it will be chaos. And as I mentioned 
before, the next generation looks at that and says I don't want 
to be part of that. And so, we will lose a generation of 
farmers, and consumers will have to pay more for their food 
prices.
    Mr. Messmer. Thank you.
    As everyone is well aware, President Trump's tariff on 
Mexican and Canadian goods went into effect this morning. I 
know the potential for trade war brings anxiety for producers 
in my district and across the nation, but I also know tariffs 
can be a way to make sure our trade partners hold up their end 
of the deal.
    Mr. Sander, where have our trade partners most abused our 
current trade agreements?
    Mr. Sander. A good example that comes to my mind is, we 
have allowed Australia to have access to our markets here in 
the U.S. for many years, and we have not been able to send even 
$1 of our product into their markets. And so, I believe that is 
an example of an export market that needs to be held 
accountable.
    Mr. Messmer. Thank you. Mr. Hopkins?
    Mr. Hopkins. I would reiterate, Australia and New Zealand 
have pummeled the sheep industry with lamb imports for decades. 
So, when unfair trade practices like that are occurring, 
tariffs are definitely warranted. They have all kinds of 
advantages that we don't have in the United States, and it is 
important that we try to level the playing field. So, I think 
in the face of such unfairness, we need tariffs.
    Mr. Messmer. Thank you. Well, with that, I will yield back 
the rest of my time.
    Before--today's hearing has been a perfect example of why 
the livestock sector--oh, he showed up. Yes.
    Mr. Nunn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it, and 
thank you for allowing me to waive onto this.
    You are all here at a very timely juncture as the Chairman 
has just noted, both in American history, but what it means to 
farmers across the country. As a guy from Iowa, sixth-
generation family farm, these impacts are felt across not only 
the 87,000 family farms in Iowa, but across the country. We 
know that our farming communities are facing significant 
challenges, from rising input costs to the ongoing diseases 
like bird flu.
    I would like to begin today by talking specifically to Mr. 
West and Mr. Zimmerman. Farming isn't just a job. For many of 
us, it is a way of life, and diseases like bird flu and aMPV 
threaten our farmers' livelihood and the very future of their 
ability to farm. In the last year alone, Iowa's farmers have 
lost over \1/2\ million birds to aMPV alone, particularly in 
our turkeys.
    Mr. Zimmerman, I would like to ask, is there a single USDA 
program that offers financial assistance to turkey producers 
impacted by aMPV?
    Mr. Zimmerman. No.
    Mr. Nunn. That is right. So, I just want to repeat that 
again for all the folks who are watching at home and reporting 
on this from the ag side. They are talking about the impact 
here. Not a single Federal program currently exists to help our 
turkey producers recover from aMPV, and that is more than one 
million birds lost just in Iowa. Across the country, we are 
talking about true tragedy.
    And that is exactly why I am proud to lead the Iowa 
delegation, and one I think is important for the entire country 
here, that the USDA--urge them to allow aMPV to qualify for the 
Livestock Indemnity Program, or LIP, and Mr. Chairman, I would 
ask that this letter be entered into the record.
    Mr. Messmer. Agreed.
    [The letter referred to is located on p. 71.]
    Mr. Nunn. Mr. Zimmerman, how would access to LIP program 
benefit producers in the coming months?
    Mr. Zimmerman. It would provide a lifeline. As you said, 
when you lose 30 to 50 percent of your flock, that is a loss of 
30 to 50 percent of your yearly income. I mean, think of that 
if you are a salaried individual. How would you survive losing 
that much? And then again, it will provide some certainty to 
our lenders that there is hope and that there can be some 
recovery from these losses.
    In addition to that, I would like to address that there is 
a vaccine for aMPV. We are starting to see that now, but the 
process that it took over a year for us to get that approved 
needs to be reevaluated, because this isn't the only animal 
disease we are going to have in the future, and there are going 
to be vaccines that need to come into this country, and they 
need to be regulated and safe, but it should not take over a 
year for us to have access to the tools we need to protect our 
flocks.
    Mr. Nunn. And I would agree with you on that. Not even just 
a family losing half of their income, imagine the family farm 
or a hometown community that sees half of its income wiped out. 
The ripple effect here is huge. You are absolutely right; this 
isn't just in the turkey sector, but removing the regulation to 
be able to get the vaccines needed to the front lines, it is 
not just in aMPV, it is also in bird flu.
    Mr. West, I know you have worked on this. With the prices 
of eggs nearly doubling, something that my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle maybe didn't care about 6 months ago. 
Now it is all they can talk about. But the reality here is that 
a lot of this is being driven directly by bird flu driving up 
costs, both at the supermarket, but on my breakfast table and I 
am trying to feed six kids.
    I want to check with you on this. How are farmers' access 
to critical vaccines prevented by this spread of bird flu while 
at the same time if we could get these out here, not only would 
we help keep more flocks, we would help drive down costs for 
consumers.
    Mr. West. I am not sure I understand the question. Is the 
question the availability of other vaccines aside from avian 
influenza?
    Mr. Nunn. Yes, great clarifying point. Both the access to 
them, the regulatory items that Mr. Zimmerman just highlighted, 
and then being able to field that in a timely fashion.
    Mr. West. We have had zero issues with vaccinations and 
vaccines to have inventory on our farms to this point. I can't 
speak to what is going to happen in the future, but the 
vaccines that we need and use are readily available at the 
moment.
    Mr. Nunn. Would you consider them critical for the success 
that you have seen in fighting bird flu?
    Mr. West. Absolutely.
    Mr. Nunn. Would you like to see that model replicated when 
it comes to fighting things like aMPV for turkeys?
    Mr. West. Yes. I would like to see avian influenza vaccine 
implemented and put into place and put into execution.
    Mr. Nunn. I would agree with you, and I think there is a 
good pathway that you have highlighted here.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With that, I think we can all see 
the importance of the government getting to work on this to 
help communities in need while this is ongoing.
    With that, I yield back my time.
    Mr. Messmer. Thank you.
    Today's hearing has been a perfect example of why the 
livestock sector is so important. As mentioned earlier, 
agriculture is incredibly interconnected. From the producer to 
the feedlot, and from the harvest facility to the distributor, 
every role is important to delivering protein to the market and 
to our consumers.
    To our witnesses, thank you for being here today. We heard 
you loud and clear. From supporting the three-legged stool, to 
pushing back on the unscientific Salmonella Framework, to 
providing support to producers impacted by the avian flu, and 
expanding our markets for American animal protein exports, we 
have out work cut out for us. I look forward to working with 
all of you on the livestock issues that are so important to 
America, and as we reauthorize one of the strongest farm bills 
yet.
    Under the Rules of the Committee the record of today's 
hearing will remain open for 10 calendar days to receive 
additional material and supplemental responses from the 
witnesses to any questions posed by a Member. This hearing of 
the Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry is now 
adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
    [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
    Submitted Statement by Hon. Glenn Thompson, a Representative in 
Congress from Pennsylvania; on Behalf of American Bankers Association, 
     Farm Credit Council, Independent Community Bankers of America
    Dear Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Craig, and Members of the 
Committee: Thank you for the opportunity to submit a written statement 
on behalf of the American Bankers Association, the Farm Credit Council 
and the Independent Community Bankers of America. We respectfully 
request that this statement be made part of the record for the March 4, 
2025 House Committee on Agriculture Hearing.
    The uncertainty surrounding some Federal programs is compounding 
already challenging economic conditions faced by America's farmers and 
ranchers. However, lenders in the agricultural sector remain committed 
to supporting our customers. We thank Congress for providing both 
agriculture economic and disaster assistance. As USDA works to send 
those funds to eligible producers, we as lenders, are well positioned 
and able to consider the economic assistance funds as we look at 
individual customer balance sheets and make lending decisions. Many of 
our members are utilizing USDA data and data from Land-Grant 
Universities to assist in making these funding assumptions. We will 
work diligently to position our customers with the financing options 
they need to continue operating during these challenging times. 
Finally, the most impactful thing Congress can do to ensure producers 
have the certainty they need to operate in these uncertain times is to 
pass a meaningful 5 year farm bill as soon as possible.
                                 ______
                                 
  Submitted Letter by Hon. Zachary Nunn, a Representative in Congress 
                               from Iowa
March 4, 2025

 
 
 
Hon. Brooke Rollins,                 Hon. Kimberly Graham,
Secretary,                           Acting Administrator,
U.S. Department of Agriculture,      Farm Service Agency,
Washington, D.C.;                    Washington, D.C.
 

    Secretary Rollins and Acting Administrator Graham,

    We write today with deep concerns regarding the avian 
Metapneumovirus (aMPV), an acute respiratory virus of turkeys and 
poultry breeding stock, and the devastating impact it has had on Iowa's 
turkey farmers. Given the severe implications threatening the viability 
of turkey operations, we ask that the U.S. Department of Agriculture 
consider providing immediate financial assistance to the nation's 
turkey producers by allowing aMPV to qualify as an eligible adverse 
event under the Livestock Indemnity Program.
    The aMPV virus, or Turkey Rhinotracheitis, is a highly contagious, 
viral respiratory disease that can infect turkeys, broilers, layers, 
and breeders for up to 4 weeks, leading to high flock mortality, 
reproductive disorders, and potentially a permanent reduction in egg 
production.
    Since its identification in the fall of 2023, the disease has 
spread to all turkey producing states, having a major impact on turkey 
farmers, processors, small businesses, and the consumer supply chain. 
Iowa turkey farmers have reported flock losses ranging from 30 percent 
to 50 percent due to aMPV, threatening both their livelihoods and the 
broader U.S. turkey supply. Last year alone, Iowa's farmers lost an 
estimated 569,700 turkeys due to aMPV. This attributed to a loss of $18 
million in farm income.
    Iowa's sharp decline in turkey production is reflective of the 
national turkey industry at large. Despite devastating financial 
shortfalls and supply chain disruptions caused by aMPV, there are 
currently no Federal assistance programs available to offset these 
devastating losses, leaving many family-owned operations at risk of 
closure. Without immediate support, the viability of these farms--and 
the stability of the U.S. turkey industry--is in jeopardy.
    We appreciate the USDA's efforts in authorizing the importation of 
one inactivated vaccine and three live vaccines for aMPV. As this 
process develops, it is critical that the USDA act swiftly to approve 
its use and expedite its distributions across the nation. In the 
interim, turkey farmers continue to suffer substantial losses without 
any meaningful financial safety net.
    To mitigate these losses and prevent future outbreaks, we urge the 
USDA Farm Service Agency (USDA-FSA) to consider determining aMPV as an 
eligible adverse event under the Livestock Indemnity Program so that 
our farmers can access much-needed financial relief to affected 
producers.
    We appreciate your consideration and look forward to working 
together to support American turkey farmers during this crisis. Should 
you have any questions about this request, please contact Congressman 
Zach Nunn's Legislative Assistant, Madeline Willis, at [Redacted].
            Sincerely,

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
            

 
 
 
Hon. Zachary Nunn,                   Hon. Randy Feenstra,
Member of Congress                   Member of Congress
 

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
                                     

 
 
 
Hon. Ashley Hinson,                  Hon. Mariannette Miller-Meeks,
Member of Congress                   Member of Congress
 

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
                                     

 
 
 
Hon. Chuck Grassley,                 Hon. Joni Ernst,
United States Senator                United States Senator
 

                                 ______
                                 
 Submitted Letter by Hon. Jim Costa, a Representative in Congress from 
    California; on Behalf of Kevin Abernathy, General Manager, Milk 
                           Producers Council
March 3, 2025

  Hon. Jim Costa,
  Ranking Member,
  Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry,
  House Committee on Agriculture,
  Washington, D.C.

    Dear Congressman Costa,

    Thank you for this opportunity to share an update on the effects 
the Highly-Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) has had on California 
dairy producers.
    Since its first detection in the late summer of 2024, 747 
California dairies have been infected, which is about 70 percent of all 
the dairy farms in the state. However, due to the highly transmissible 
nature of the virus, the California Department of Food and Agriculture 
(CDFA) currently has 991 dairy farms under surveillance, which is 
nearly all of the dairy farms in California. To date, 297 of the 
infected farms have fully recovered and been released from CDFA 
quarantine, but surveillance continues to determine if any of these 
farms become reinfected as we have seen in other states.
    The toll HPAI has taken on dairy families has been both emotional 
and economic. My producers have been ``cow people'' for generations, 
and they have shared countless stories about how they have never seen 
so many of their animals sick at one time. The past 7 months have truly 
been an unprecedented time for our dairy families.
    Economically, HPAI has dealt a terrible blow to our dairy families 
at a time when margins on the farm are already razor thin. When the 
cows are infected, their milk production drops anywhere from 10 to 40 
percent. Post infection, production comes back up, but in many cases, 
does not return to previous levels. Imagine any business continuing to 
survive by cutting its sales up to 40 percent, while still incurring 
the same level of expenses. I estimate that the average size dairy in 
our state is losing out on $225,000 a month in milk sales while 
infected with HPAI. Moreover, most of my producer members are three-to-
seven times larger than the average dairy, which can put their losses 
at well over $1 million per month. Producers are struggling to cash-
flow their business and racking up more debt, which is having a ripple 
effect throughout the California farm community.
    Fortunately, USDA started accepting ELAP applications for milk 
losses due to HPAI, which gave hope to our producers. However, that 
hope has been put on hold due to a stop in payments by USDA. Based on 
my personal experience working on ELAP applications with my members, I 
estimate that about one percent of producers have received their ELAP 
payment. It is my hope that you will request a report from USDA 
detailing how many ELAP applications have been received, processed, and 
funded. It is critical that Congress and the Administration work 
together to resolve this issue so that approval of applications and 
disbursement of funds by USDA's Farm Service Agency resumes. Time is of 
the essence for California dairy producers.
            Respectfully,

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
            
Kevin Abernathy, General Manager.
                                 ______
                                 
                          Submitted Questions
Response from John Zimmerman, Immediate Past Chairman, National Turkey 
        Federation
Questions Submitted by Hon. Randy Feenstra, a Representative in 
        Congress from Iowa
    Question 1. The last Administration failed to negotiate new trade 
agreements or renegotiate existing ones, further hurting the farm 
economy and the economic viability of our family farms. This has 
created a severe crisis in farm country, and it is critical that we 
improve our trading capabilities to expand our export markets.
    However, without robust market development and critical 
infrastructure, our producers are significantly limited in their 
ability to export their high-quality products around the world.
    As we look at diversifying export markets, specifically, the 
availability of cold chain capacity has been a limiting factor in 
growing trade with developing countries.
    That is why I am proud to lead the FRIDGE Act--which would direct 
the USDA to negotiate contracts to deliver needs assessments, training, 
and other technical assistance to enhance infrastructure construction, 
including cold chain storage, to new and developing foreign markets.
    Mr. Zimmerman, can you talk about the importance of cold chain 
capacity in emerging markets to the export of turkey and pork?
    Answer. When you have a fresh product such as turkey, having a 
reliable cold chain storage system is critical to the United States 
establishing itself in an emerging market. Currently, limited cold 
storage vastly restricts certain countries' ability to safely store 
turkey products in their home country due to the lack of cold storage 
space.

    Question 2. How would this help increase trade opportunities?
    Answer. The FRIDGE Act would assist in building the necessary 
infrastructure essential to the expansion of all agriculture products, 
including turkey products into new, developing locations around the 
world.
Question Submitted by Hon. Ronny Jackson, a Representative in Congress 
        from Texas
    Question. On top of passing a new farm bill, the House Agriculture 
Committee is also engaged in the reconciliation process to help extend 
expiring provisions from President Trump's Tax Cuts and Jobs Act 
(TCJA).
    Livestock producers in my district have benefited from a number of 
common-sense tax provisions in the TCJA, which have helped them build 
their operations and stimulate the agricultural economy.
    Are there any Tax Cut and Job Act provisions that the producers 
that you are here representing today have a vested interest in seeing 
extended for the livelihood of their operations?
    Answer. There are several business tax provisions that 
significantly impact turkey growers and agricultural businesses across 
the United States. The following are a few provisions that enable 
agricultural operations to invest in their futures, maintain 
competitiveness, and contribute to the nation's food security and 
economic stability.
    Maintaining Stepped-Up Basis: Stepped-up basis is critically 
important to family-owned farms because it can significantly reduce the 
potential estate tax burden that may arise when the family passes on 
the property to the next generation. When a property owner passes away, 
the basis (or original purchase price) of the property is ``stepped-
up'' to the current market value at the time of their death, rather 
than being based on the original purchase price. This is beneficial 
because if heirs must sell the property, they only pay capital gains 
tax on the difference between the sale price and the stepped-up value, 
not on the difference between the original purchase price and the sale 
price.
    Family farms are often passed down through generations and can 
appreciate substantially in value over time. The original owners may 
have purchased the land decades or even generations ago at a relatively 
low price compared to its current market value. Without the stepped-up 
basis, heirs would inherit the property with the original lower basis. 
If the property were sold immediately, they would be liable for paying 
capital gains taxes on the large increase in value that has accrued 
over time.
    Estate Tax Relief: The estate tax is overly burdensome on families 
trying to pass their farm to the next generation. While the estate tax 
should be repealed in its entirety, any reduction to the current 
enhanced exemption level will be detrimental for families looking to 
pass their land and farms to the next generation. The higher exemption 
threshold alleviates the tax burden that often forces the selling of 
all or parts of family farms to pay the tax bill. At a minimum, keeping 
the current enhanced threshold will ensure continuity of operations and 
preserve the agricultural heritage that is vital to our communities.
    Making the Lower Individual Tax Rates and Expanded Tax Brackets 
Permanent: Many agricultural businesses operate as pass-through 
entities, meaning their profits are taxed at individual rates. The 
lower individual rates and expanded brackets contained in the Tax Cuts 
and Jobs Act are vital for farmers, allowing them to retain more income 
to reinvest in their operations and meet rising production costs.
    Making 199A Qualified Business Income Deduction Permanent: The 199A 
deduction allows agricultural producers to retain a portion of their 
income, promoting reinvestment in equipment, labor, land, and 
sustainable practices. This provision helps level the playing field for 
family farms against larger agribusinesses and the lower corporate tax 
rate, ensuring that these vital operations can continue to thrive and 
support local economies. This provision also benefits farmer 
cooperatives.
    Maintaining Section 179 Expensing: This provision allows for the 
immediate expensing of qualifying capital investments, up to a limit 
and with certain income requirements. This provision provides 
flexibility to farmers in how they choose to expense and depreciate 
their capital investments. This is especially important in agriculture, 
where investments in machinery and technology can be substantial. By 
enabling farmers to deduct these costs in the year equipment is placed 
in service, Section 179 encourages investment, enhances productivity, 
and promotes innovation in the agricultural sector.
    Restoring 100% Bonus Depreciation: The availability of 100% bonus 
depreciation has significantly benefited agricultural producers, 
enabling essential investments in equipment and infrastructure without 
the burden of delayed tax benefits. This provision not only stimulates 
growth but also enhances agriculture efficiency, allowing farmers to 
adopt the latest technologies and practices.
    Maintaining 1031 Like-Kind Exchanges: Like-kind exchanges are a 
vital tool for agricultural businesses looking to reinvest in property 
without incurring immediate tax liabilities. Maintaining this provision 
allows farmers to swap properties while deferring capital gains taxes, 
providing them the flexibility to adapt to changing market conditions, 
urban sprawl or environmental issues.
    Maintaining the 20% Capital Gains Rate: Agriculture is a capital-
intensive industry, which makes keeping the cost of capital low 
extremely important. A lower capital gains rate encourages reinvestment 
in agriculture operations, rewarding those who take risks to innovate 
and grow. Preserving the 20% capital gains rate will help ensure the 
financial viability of our agricultural supply chain.
Response from Lori Stevermer, President, National Pork Producers 
        Council
Questions Submitted by Hon. Randy Feenstra, a Representative in 
        Congress from Iowa
    Question 1. I represent the number one hog producing district in 
the country--in 2024, farmers in Iowa marketed more than 25 million 
hogs valued at $15.4 billion in while providing more than 120,000 jobs 
to the state.
    My producers continue to be at risk by the Supreme Court's decision 
to uphold Prop 12--which is burdensome, invasive, and just plain wrong 
for Iowa farmers.
    This egregious regulatory overreach is burdening our producers by 
creating a patchwork of differing state laws and increasing compliance 
costs for our producers, while also costing California consumers nearly 
$300 million annually.
    Ms. Stevermer, in your testimony you talk about the importance of 
international trade to U.S. pork producers, but what do our trading 
partners think of non-scientific standards like prop 12?
    Answer. Our trading partners are concerned with the implications of 
Prop 12. For example, weaned pigs that come from Canada to be finished 
on U.S. pig farms would need to be Prop 12 compliant if the meat from 
those pigs was sold into California. This requires auditors to visit 
those Canadian farms to certify they are compliant. Canada, New Zealand 
and Australia have raised this as specific trade concern as recently as 
the June 2024 WTO Technical Barriers to Trade Committee Meeting.
    We are also concerned about the additional patchwork of regulations 
that will result if Congress does not address Prop 12, and the impact 
will have on international trade agreements.

    Question 2. The last Administration failed to negotiate new trade 
agreements or renegotiate existing ones, further hurting the farm 
economy and the economic viability of our family farms. This has 
created a severe crisis in farm country, and it is critical that we 
improve our trading capabilities to expand our export markets.
    However, without robust market development and critical 
infrastructure, our producers are significantly limited in their 
ability to export their high-quality products around the world.
    As we look at diversifying export markets, specifically, the 
availability of cold chain capacity has been a limiting factor in 
growing trade with developing countries.
    That is why I am proud to lead the FRIDGE Act--which would direct 
the USDA to negotiate contracts to deliver needs assessments, training, 
and other technical assistance to enhance infrastructure construction, 
including cold chain storage, to new and developing foreign markets.
    Ms. Stevermer, can you talk about the importance of cold chain 
capacity in emerging markets to the export of turkey and pork?
    Answer. NPPC is supportive of expanding exports to developing 
markets and programs like the FRIDGE Act and also Foreign Market 
Development (FMD) and Market Access Programs (MAP) help that 
development.

    Question 3. How would this help increase trade opportunities?
    Answer. Programs like these create better access for U.S. pork and 
helps meet the desire for fresh, chilled pork in those countries.
Questions Submitted by Hon. Ronny Jackson, a Representative in Congress 
        from Texas
    Question 1. America's animal agricultural industry has been 
extremely fortunate to have kept out many foreign animal diseases that 
have devastated other producers throughout the world, but when a 
foreign animal disease outbreak occurs in the U.S., the effects will be 
catastrophic.
    African Swine Fever, which has been detected in the Dominican 
Republic and Haiti, is projected to cost the U.S. swine industry over 
$50 billion.
    The High-Path Avian Influenza outbreak has ravaged our poultry 
industry and has now expanded into our dairy cattle herds, which has 
had disastrous effects on farmers in my district.
    Could you please expand on the importance of the National Animal 
Vaccine and Veterinary Countermeasures Bank, the National Animal 
Disease Preparedness and Response Program, and the National Animal 
Health Lab Network--and how additional funding in the upcoming farm 
bill will help protect producers from the effects of a foreign animal 
disease outbreak?
    Answer. A strong laboratory network is necessary for surveillance 
and disease detection. Ensuring the states and counties have access to 
resources they need to respond to a FAD through the NADPRP grants and 
having stockpile of vaccines will allow us to respond quickly to high 
consequence diseases. Additional funding in the farm bill will help 
ensure we can implement high-value projects that enhance prevention, 
preparedness, detection, and response to the most damaging and emerging 
FADs that threaten U.S. agriculture.

    Question 2. On top of passing a new farm bill, the House 
Agriculture Committee is also engaged in the reconciliation process to 
help extend expiring provisions from President Trump's Tax Cuts and 
Jobs Act (TCJA).
    Livestock producers in my district have benefited from a number of 
common-sense tax provisions in the TCJA, which have helped them build 
their operations and stimulate the agricultural economy.
    Are there any Tax Cut and Job Act provisions that the producers 
that you are here representing today have a vested interest in seeing 
extended for the livelihood of their operations?
    Answer. There are a number of provisions in the TCJA that pork 
producers would like to make permanent or modify slightly, 
specifically:

  1.  Bonus Depreciation--TCJA allowed immediate deduction of the 
            purchase price of eligible business assets beyond normal 
            depreciation. Gradually sunsetting from 100% deduction in 
            20% annual increments, the provision is set to fully expire 
            in 2027. Some large capital expenditures made in pork 
            production are eligible. NPPC asks that a bonus 
            depreciation of 100% become permanent to provide pork 
            producers the flexibility to plan cash flows from major 
            asset acquisitions.

  2.  Qualified Business Income (``QBI'') Deductions--TCJA created an 
            expiring deduction for pass-through income to level the tax 
            liability of pass-through entities with that of corporate 
            entities. Many pork producers are pass-through entities and 
            would face substantially increased tax liability if this 
            provision expired. NPPC asks for this provision to become 
            permanent and allow pork producers to make organizational 
            decisions for their businesses not based solely on tax 
            liability.

  3.  Business Interest Expense Limitations--TCJA simultaneously 
            imposed a 30% limit on deducting interest expense and 
            altered the definition of adjusted taxable income to 
            exclude depreciation and amortization. Producers that are 
            reliant on lending are negatively impacted by this change. 
            NPPC asks for the interest expense to be eliminated to 
            avoid harming pork producers who rely on borrowing money to 
            make improvements or normalize cash flow in poor market 
            conditions.

  4.  Estate and Gift Tax Exemptions--TCJA doubled the estate and gift 
            tax threshold through the end of the 2025 tax year. Though 
            few operations are subject to the estate tax, farm 
            operations disproportionately trigger estate tax liability 
            due to substantial land assets. NPPC asks that the estate 
            tax exemption increase be permanent to prevent new tax 
            exposure for family-owned pork producers.

  5.  Increasing or Expanding Section 179 Expensing--Similar to bonus 
            depreciation, Section 179 allows for the immediate 
            expensing of the cost of eligible property purchased and 
            placed into service. Section 179 eligible assets are highly 
            restricted and subject to a total deduction limit. NPPC 
            asks that Congress increase the expense limitations of 
            Section 179 substantially in order to provide pork 
            producers flexibility in planning cash flows around major 
            asset acquisitions as well as expand the list of assets 
            eligible under this provision.
Response from Mike West, President, J.S. West & Companies, Inc.; 
        Chairman, United Egg Producers
Question Submitted by Hon. Ronny Jackson, a Representative in Congress 
        from Texas
    Question. On top of passing a new farm bill, the House Agriculture 
Committee is also engaged in the reconciliation process to help extend 
expiring provisions from President Trump's Tax Cuts and Jobs Act 
(TCJA).
    Livestock producers in my district have benefited from a number of 
common-sense tax provisions in the TCJA, which have helped them build 
their operations and stimulate the agricultural economy.
    Are there any Tax Cut and Job Act provisions that the producers 
that you are here representing today have a vested interest in seeing 
extended for the livelihood of their operations?
    Answer. Egg farmers support extending all the 2017 tax cuts. Of 
particular importance to us are maintaining the current estate tax 
exemptions, indexed for inflation, and restoring full bonus 
depreciation to 100%.
Response from Walter Schweitzer, President, Montana Farmers Union
Question Submitted by Hon. Ronny Jackson, a Representative in Congress 
        from Texas
    Question. On top of passing a new farm bill, the House Agriculture 
Committee is also engaged in the reconciliation process to help extend 
expiring provisions from President Trump's Tax Cuts and Jobs Act 
(TCJA).
    Livestock producers in my district have benefited from a number of 
common-sense tax provisions in the TCJA, which have helped them build 
their operations and stimulate the agricultural economy.
    Are there any Tax Cut and Job Act provisions that the producers 
that you are here representing today have a vested interest in seeing 
extended for the livelihood of their operations?
    Answer. We would like to see the Section 199A deduction made 
permanent. This provision has been essential for keeping agricultural 
cooperatives and their farmer members competitive with corporations 
that have benefited from the permanently reduced corporate tax rate 
established by the TCJA. While we wish to see this provision made 
permanent, any efforts to ensure that our Tax Code supports family 
farmers and ranchers should not come at the expense of passing a badly 
needed farm bill this year.
Response from Troy Sander, Past Chairman, Live Cattle Marketing 
        Committee, National Cattlemen's Beef Association
Questions Submitted by Hon. Ronny Jackson, a Representative in Congress 
        from Texas
    Question 1. On November 20th, USDA-APHIS halted shipments of 
Mexican Cattle to the United States after a positive detection of the 
New World Screwworm in Mexico.
    Representing the largest fed-cattle district in the United States, 
many of my constituents contacted my office explaining the detrimental 
impact that feedlots in Texas would face if the border remained closed.
    Thankfully, on February 1st, APHIS resumed cattle imports from 
Mexico, allowing my cattle feeders to continue feeding our country, 
but, the threat of a positive New World Screwworm case in the U.S. is 
still a lingering issue.
    USDA-APHIS has recently stated that they have found two locations 
for sterile fly dispersal centers in Mexico, creating a ``Sterile Fly 
Barrier Zone.''
    Do you believe that this will be enough to restrict the New World 
Screwworm's migration to the United States, or do you believe that we 
should also be looking into domestic facilities for sterile fly 
production and dispersal?
    Answer. Congressman Jackson, thank you for the question. The 
barrier zones you referenced are certainly a positive strategy in the 
effort to keep this parasite from reaching our borders. Given that the 
Sterile Insect Technique (SIT) is the best known means of controlling 
and eradicating New World Screwworm (NWS), we are pleased that the 
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) at the United States 
Department of Agriculture (USDA), in coordination with their Central 
American counterparts, are keeping up deployment of this method in the 
Central American countries hardest hit by the current outbreak. 
However, a more aggressive strategy will be needed if we are ever to 
halt the parasite's northward march, prevent it from reaching the 
United States, and eventually contain it south of Panama once again.
    Currently, the only existing sterile insect production facility--
run by the Panama-U.S. Commission for the Eradication and Prevention of 
Screwworm (COPEG)--is located in Pacora, Panama. While this location 
made sense in the 1990s, when COPEG's primary mission was to keep NWS 
from expanding north beyond the Darien Gap, now that that barrier has 
been breached the facility is ill-positioned to respond. NWS has spread 
as far north as the Mexican state of Chiapas; the sterile insects 
produced by COPEG have lost efficacy, and they will become 
progressively less effective as they are transported longer and longer 
distances to new outbreak sites. Realistically, going forward the 
facility will only be able to support containment efforts in Central 
America. Given this reality, it seems very unlikely that the current 
rate of SIT deployment supported by existing production capabilities 
will be enough to prevent NWS from reaching the southern border of the 
United States.
    In order to successfully eliminate the NWS threat to U.S. 
livestock, wildlife, domestic pets, and even humans, we need to be 
looking at increasing overall SIT efforts, and the most sensible place 
to put that production is here in the United States.

    Question 2. In November of 2023, Biden's USDA released a final rule 
on the Importation of Fresh Beef from Paraguay, placing our livestock 
producers in unnecessary danger of a potential domestic Foot-and-Mouth 
disease outbreak.
    The decision to begin allowing the importation of fresh Paraguayan 
beef utilized risk assessment data from site visits to the country from 
over a decade ago.
    A Foot-and-Mouth Disease outbreak in the U.S. is projected to lead 
to $57 million in losses per day.
    I repeat . . . $57 million per day.
    This rule making was negligence at best and malfeasance at worst.
    Do you believe that using data from site visits over a decade old 
is a safe and responsible way for unelected bureaucrats to allow 
imports from countries with a known history of FMD?
    Answer. Absolutely not, which is precisely why the National 
Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA) has consistently opposed the 
importation of fresh beef from Paraguay. It is irresponsible to 
greenlight access to the U.S. market based on such outdated 
information--especially when it would require such little effort to 
send APHIS and FSIS inspectors to the country to conduct new reviews.
    Imports play a role in the U.S. beef supply chain, but those 
countries sending fresh beef products to our nation should have to 
verify it does not pose a threat to human health or domestic animal 
welfare. Paraguay has failed to do that to NCBA's satisfaction, and we 
are hopeful that the Trump Administration will halt their access to the 
American market until they can do so.

    Question 3. On top of passing a new farm bill, the House 
Agriculture Committee is also engaged in the reconciliation process to 
help extend expiring provisions from President Trump's Tax Cuts and 
Jobs Act (TCJA).
    Livestock producers in my district have benefited from a number of 
common-sense tax provisions in the TCJA, which have helped them build 
their operations and stimulate the agricultural economy.
    Are there any Tax Cut and Job Act provisions that the producers 
that you are here representing today have a vested interest in seeing 
extended for the livelihood of their operations?
    Answer. We support the preservation of several important tax 
provisions such as the stepped-up basis, 1031 exchanges, 199A 
deductions, 2032A valuations, and many others. However, chief among 
NCBA's priorities for the 119th Congress is a full and complete repeal 
of the death tax. This single provision of the Tax Code is the top 
threat to the future of family farms and ranches. As you are well 
aware, farmers and ranchers are land rich and cash poor. They operate 
on razor-thin margins and limited cash flow. In many cases, there 
simply isn't the liquid capital to cover death tax obligations. Most of 
the time, this means selling portions of the farm or ranch to satisfy 
the IRS. I cannot think of a worse way to set the next generation of 
farmers and ranchers up for success. If food security truly is national 
security, then we get serious about how we view the death tax.
    In short, Congressman, NCBA does not believe death should be a 
taxable event.

                               [all]