[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


    A REVIEW OF USDA ANIMAL DISEASE PREVENTION AND RESPONSE EFFORTS

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

             SUBCOMMITTEE ON LIVESTOCK, DAIRY, AND POULTRY

                                 OF THE

                        COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION
                               __________

                             APRIL 18, 2023
                               __________

                            Serial No. 118-6
                            
                            
                  [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]                            


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

                               __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
                    
52-768 PDF                WASHINGTON : 2023   




                        COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE

                 GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania, Chairman

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma             DAVID SCOTT, Georgia, Ranking 
AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia, Vice          Minority Member
Chairman                             JIM COSTA, California
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas  JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee          ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina
DOUG LaMALFA, California             ABIGAIL DAVIS SPANBERGER, Virginia
DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina         JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut
TRENT KELLY, Mississippi             SHONTEL M. BROWN, Ohio
DON BACON, Nebraska                  SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas
MIKE BOST, Illinois                  ELISSA SLOTKIN, Michigan
DUSTY JOHNSON, South Dakota          YADIRA CARAVEO, Colorado
JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana              ANDREA SALINAS, Oregon
TRACEY MANN, Kansas                  MARIE GLUESENKAMP PEREZ, 
RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa                 Washington
MARY E. MILLER, Illinois             DONALD G. DAVIS, North Carolina, 
BARRY MOORE, Alabama                 Vice Ranking Minority Member
KAT CAMMACK, Florida                 JILL N. TOKUDA, Hawaii
BRAD FINSTAD, Minnesota              NIKKI BUDZINSKI, Illinois
JOHN W. ROSE, Tennessee              ERIC SORENSEN, Illinois
RONNY JACKSON, Texas                 GABE VASQUEZ, New Mexico
MARCUS J. MOLINARO, New York         JASMINE CROCKETT, Texas
MONICA De La CRUZ, Texas             JONATHAN L. JACKSON, Illinois
NICHOLAS A. LANGWORTHY, New York     GREG CASAR, Texas
JOHN S. DUARTE, California           CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
ZACHARY NUNN, Iowa                   SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California
MARK ALFORD, Missouri                ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota
DERRICK VAN ORDEN, Wisconsin         DARREN SOTO, Florida
LORI CHAVEZ-DeREMER, Oregon          SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia
MAX L. MILLER, Ohio

                                 ______

                     Parish Braden, Staff Director

                 Anne Simmons, Minority Staff Director

                                 ______

             Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry

                     TRACEY MANN, Kansas, Chairman

SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee          JIM COSTA, California, Ranking 
TRENT KELLY, Mississippi             Minority Member
DON BACON, Nebraska                  ABIGAIL DAVIS SPANBERGER, Virginia
JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana              JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut
RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa                 YADIRA CARAVEO, Colorado
BARRY MOORE, Alabama                 JILL N. TOKUDA, Hawaii
RONNY JACKSON, Texas                 CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
MARCUS J. MOLINARO, New York         DARREN SOTO, Florida
MARK ALFORD, Missouri                DONALD G. DAVIS, North Carolina
DERRICK VAN ORDEN, Wisconsin         ------
                                     ------

                                  (ii)

                             C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Costa, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from California, 
  opening statement..............................................     3
Mann, Hon. Tracey, a Representative in Congress from Kansas, 
  opening statement..............................................     1
    Prepared statement...........................................     2
    Supplementary material.......................................    41
Miller, Hon. Max L., a Representative in Congress from Ohio, 
  prepared statement.............................................     6
Thompson, Hon. Glenn, a Representative in Congress from 
  Pennsylvania, opening statement................................     4
    Prepared statement...........................................     5

                                Witness

Moffitt, Hon. Jenny Lester, Under Secretary for Marketing and 
  Regulatory Programs, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 
  Washington, D.C.; accompanied by Alecia L. Naugle, D.V.M., 
  Ph.D., Associate Deputy Administrator, Veterinary Services, 
  Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA...............     7
    Prepared statement...........................................     9
    Supplementary material.......................................    41
    Submitted questions..........................................    42

 
    A REVIEW OF USDA ANIMAL DISEASE PREVENTION AND RESPONSE EFFORTS

                              ----------                              


                        TUESDAY, APRIL 18, 2023

                  House of Representatives,
             Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry,
                                  Committee on Agriculture,
                                                   Washington, D.C.
    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:01 a.m., in 
Room 1300 of the Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Tracey 
Mann [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
    Members present: Mann, DesJarlais, Bacon, Baird, Feenstra, 
Moore, Jackson of Texas, Molinaro, Alford, Van Orden, Thompson 
(ex officio), Costa, Spanberger, Caraveo, Pingree, and Davis of 
North Carolina.
    Staff present: Caleb Crosswhite, Justina Graff, Patricia 
Straughn, Erin Wilson, John Konya, Daniel Feingold, Josh 
Lobert, Michael Stein, and Dana Sandman.

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

    The Chairman. The Committee will come to order. Welcome, 
and thank you for joining us at today's hearing entitled, A 
Review of USDA Animal Disease Prevention and Response Efforts. 
After brief opening remarks, Members will receive testimony 
from our witness today, and then the hearing will be open to 
questions.
    It is an honor to chair this first hearing of the House 
Agriculture Committee's Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and 
Poultry in the 118th Congress. As a fifth-generation Kansan, 
having grown up on our family's farming operation, 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 and 
responsibility for feeding the world that comes along with it.
    Chairing this Subcommittee is a privilege for me, as I 
represent the big 1st District of Kansas, which produces more 
than $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 1st. 
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.
    Back in 1915--and I have a button here from the convention 
that year.* The Kansas Livestock Association was here on 
Capitol Hill advocating for producers around the exact same 
issues that we are looking at today: packers, stockyards, and 
animal health. Foot-and-mouth disease was wreaking havoc at the 
time, and Kansas producers stepped up to the plate to make a 
difference and to fix problems. And here we are today more than 
100 years later holding a hearing to review USDA animal disease 
prevention and response efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    * Editor's note: an image of this pen is located on p. 41.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Today's hearing is particularly timely as we are in the 
middle of the most devastating high-path avian influenza 
outbreak on record, and African swine fever in the Dominican 
Republic and Haiti is dangerously close to our shores.
    Animal health issues don't always get the attention that 
they deserve, but, as we have seen with past animal disease 
outbreaks, there are enormous economic consequences that extend 
well beyond the animal industry. The new farm bill must 
continue to address these risks to animal health while 
bolstering the long-term ability of U.S. animal agriculture to 
be competitive in the global marketplace and provide consumers 
around the world safe, wholesome, affordable food produced in a 
sustainable manner.
    Industry stakeholders and Congressional leaders had the 
foresight to establish a three-tiered animal disease program 
with mandatory funding to ensure the sufficient development and 
the timely deployment of all measures necessary to prevent, 
identify, and mitigate the catastrophic impacts that an animal 
disease outbreak would have on our country's food security, 
export markets, and overall economic stability.
    As we work to craft this next farm bill, we must have a 
comprehensive understanding of how these programs have been 
implemented. We look forward to feedback on the lessons 
learned, what is working, what should be reconsidered, and 
where additional investment may be required.
    [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 first hearing of the House Agriculture 
Committee's Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry in the 118th 
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 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--more 
than any other Congressional district.
    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.
    Back in 1915--and I have a button from their convention that year--
the Kansas Livestock Association was here on Capitol Hill advocating 
for producers around the exact same issues that we're looking at 
today--packers, stockyards, and animal health. Foot-and-mouth disease 
was wreaking havoc at the time, and Kansas producers stepped up to the 
plate to make a difference and fix problems.
    And here we are today--more than 100 years later--holding a 
hearing, to review USDA animal disease prevention and response efforts. 
Today's hearing is particularly timely as we are in the middle of the 
most devastating high-path avian influenza outbreak on record, and 
African Swine Fever in the Dominican Republic and Haiti is getting 
dangerously close to our shores. Animal health issues don't always get 
the attention they deserve, but as we have seen with past animal 
disease outbreaks, their enormous economic consequences extend well 
beyond the animal industry.
    The new farm bill must continue to address these risks to animal 
health while bolstering the long-term ability of U.S. animal 
agriculture to be competitive in the global marketplace and provide 
consumers around the world safe, wholesome, affordable food produced in 
a sustainable manner.
    Industry stakeholders and Congressional leaders had the foresight 
to establish a three-tiered animal disease program with mandatory 
funding to ensure the sufficient development and timely deployment of 
all measures necessary to prevent, identify, and mitigate the 
catastrophic impacts that an animal disease outbreak would have on our 
country's food security, export markets, and overall economic 
stability. As we work to craft the next farm bill, we must have a 
comprehensive understanding of how these programs have been 
implemented. We look forward to feedback on the lessons learned--what's 
working, what should be reconsidered, and where additional investment 
may be required.

    The Chairman. With that, I would now like to welcome the 
distinguished Ranking Member and 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, Mr. Chairman. It is great 
to be here with our Subcommittee, and we thank you for your 
leadership, and obviously, as you noted your own personal 
family history with American agriculture from the part of the 
country that you represent. I have a similar experience, third 
generation farmer in California, and I am honored to represent 
folks throughout the great San Joaquin Valley. We have had the 
Chairman out there and part of the Committee in February, and 
we thank him for coming out there, but he has been there many 
times.
    I happen to represent the most productive dairy county in 
the country, believe it or not, Tulare County, and the highest 
citrus county in the nation, and we do a lot of good things out 
there. But this morning's hearing is important for the 
Subcommittee's purpose because our witness is Under Secretary 
Moffitt, who also is from California originally, and our good 
doctor has a good understanding of the challenges we face with 
livestock, poultry, and the other topics that are of this 
Subcommittee's jurisdiction.
    And while the livestock policy is typically addressed 
outside the farm bill, there are crucial gains certainly in the 
last farm bill that we created that ensure our food system is 
secure. I am interested to hear the witness' testimony on those 
programs because, as I say always, food is national security. 
Food is national security, and I think all of my colleagues 
here agree with that and the importance of maintaining American 
agriculture's productivity, and its certainty to continue to 
lead the world is so critical.
    No issue embodies the message to a greater extent than 
animal health programs. The inherent biosecurity measures in 
this world that we live in that is interconnected is critical, 
and therefore, protecting livestock operations in our country 
and having the tools in place to address outbreaks is critical. 
And therefore, our supply chain, which has been challenged here 
in recent years as a result of the pandemic and other factors 
both internally throughout the country, as well as externally 
in terms of our exports is something that I think the entire 
Agriculture Committee is focused on.
    We have all seen firsthand how high-pathogenic avian flu 
has devastated domestic poultry populations where depopulations 
have had to take place. It certainly has increased, as we know, 
the price of eggs. People say how could eggs increase so much? 
Well, avian flu, I am told, is a result of about 70 percent of 
the increase in egg prices.
    So we have to continue to refine and improve our approach 
to address animal disease. The USDA needs all the tools to 
guarantee a robust response. We want to thank them for their 
good work during this outbreak and previous outbreaks and their 
containment efforts. Obviously, it is critical and is the 
subject matter for today's hearing.
    There are certain aspects of animal disease that are 
difficult to contain, and the example as a primary driver of 
our current outbreak has been migrating wild bird species that 
interact between animal agriculture. It is just kind of the way 
things are, and it is inevitable. But it is something that we 
have to do and be challenged to prepare for. So I am looking 
forward to talking to our witnesses and finding how these three 
programs, the vaccine bank, the National Animal Preparedness 
and Response Program, and the National Animal Health Laboratory 
Network have been able to provide the foundation for preventing 
and preparing for outbreaks. So I look forward to the testimony 
of the witness. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Members 
of this Subcommittee, as we address the important issues that 
this Subcommittee faces. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Ranking Member Costa. And thank 
you for your partnership as we look at these important issues.
    Next, I would like to recognize Chairman Thompson for any 
opening remarks that he would like to make.

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

    Mr. Thompson. Well, thank you so much. And good morning, 
everyone. Thank you for all taking part in this hearing. Under 
Secretary Moffitt and Dr. Naugle, thank you both for being here 
today. I want to thank Chairman Mann, Ranking Member Costa for 
holding this very timely and very important hearing.
    From real-time disease response efforts to controlling 
potential disease vectors like the feral hog population, to 
monitoring a growing number of imported dogs from ASF-affected 
countries, and stopping illegal entry of meat and fruit 
products and byproducts, APHIS has a tremendous task in 
protecting the health of the U.S. animal population.
    I also want to say I have had some opportunities in my 
travels around the country to spend some individual time with 
your frontline APHIS folks, and they are great people. They are 
dedicated to what they do. Whether it was preventing rabies 
from coming from Mexico or the fever tick from crossing the 
border and coming into our cattle, or, quite frankly, the feral 
hog program that is so important because of the damage that 
they do, their work and your work is much appreciated.
    So I was proud of Congress' work in the last farm bill to 
provide a historic investment in a suite of animal disease 
preparedness and response programs. And as we draft the next 
farm bill, it is imperative that we understand how these 
existing authorities and resources have been utilized, 
especially in the wake of high-path avian influenza and the 
incoming threat of the African swine fever. We must ensure 
these and related programs are having the greatest possible 
impact. And those are at the top. Obviously, those get more 
attention, but what you do each and every day, as I have 
mentioned, the rabies threat coming across the border, the 
fever tick, there is just so much that most people are not 
familiar with, and we very much appreciate you being on the 
frontlines.
    Now, I hear all too often from folks back home and across 
the country about their ongoing struggles with the high-path 
outbreak, which has only reinforced my commitment to treating 
food security as national security. As we learned the hard way 
in 2014, 2015, biosecurity plays an enormous role in mitigating 
the spread of the disease, and we want to ensure strong 
measures are in place across all production methods.
    That said, we also have to ensure these measures don't 
unduly burden the day-to-day operations of our dedicated 
producers. So I appreciate the Department's continued 
collaboration with state officials and industry stakeholders 
towards an efficient yet pragmatic response based on the latest 
available science.
    I would also be remiss if I didn't highlight CWD, chronic 
wasting disease, which has been a big problem in many states 
for deer populations, including my home State of Pennsylvania, 
for quite some time. In total, it has spread to 29 other states 
across the country. Last Congress, I was proud to work with 
Congressman Kind and my House and Senate colleagues to enact 
the Chronic Wasting Disease Research and Management Act (Pub. 
L. 117-328). And I look forward to working with you and my 
colleagues on the Appropriations Committee to ensure that those 
programs continue to receive the attention and the resources 
that they deserve.
    And with that, I again want to thank our distinguished 
witnesses not only for being here today but for their important 
work day-to-day, working to protect the health of our animal 
populations.
    And with that, I look forward to your testimony, and I 
yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Thompson follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Glenn Thompson, a Representative in Congress 
                           from Pennsylvania
    Under Secretary Moffitt and Dr. Naugle, thank you both for being 
here today. I also want to thank Chairman Mann and Ranking Member Costa 
for holding this very timely hearing.
    From real-time disease response efforts, to controlling potential 
disease vectors like the feral hog population, to monitoring a growing 
number of imported dogs from ASF-affected countries, and stopping the 
illegal entry of meat and fruit products and byproducts--APHIS has a 
tremendous task in protecting the health of the U.S. animal population.
    So I was proud of Congress' work in the last farm bill to provide a 
historic investment in a suite of animal disease preparedness and 
response programs.
    As we draft the next farm bill, it is imperative that we understand 
how these existing authorities and resources have been utilized.
    Especially in the wake of high-path avian influenza, and with the 
looming threat of African Swine Fever, we must ensure these, and 
related programs are having the greatest possible impact.
    I hear all-to-often from folks back home and across the country 
about their ongoing struggles with the high-path outbreak, which has 
only reinforced my commitment to treating food security as national 
security.
    As we learned the hard way in 2014 and 2015, biosecurity plays an 
enormous role in mitigating the spread of the disease, and we want to 
ensure strong measures are in place across all production methods.
    That said, we also have to ensure these measures don't unduly 
burden the day-to-day operation of our dedicated producers.
    So I appreciate the Department's continued collaboration with state 
officials and industry stakeholders towards an efficient, yet pragmatic 
response based on the latest available science.
    I'd also be remiss if I didn't highlight CWD, which has been a big 
problem for the deer populations in Pennsylvania for quite some time 
and has spread to 29 other states across the country.
    Last Congress, I was proud to work with Congressman Kind and my 
House and Senate colleagues to enact the Chronic Wasting Disease 
Research and Management Act, and I look forward to working with you and 
my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee to ensure those programs 
continue to receive the attention and resources they deserve.
    With that, I again want to thank our distinguished witnesses, not 
only for being here today, but for their important day-to-day work in 
protecting the health of our animal populations.
    I look forward to your testimony, and I yield back.

    The Chairman. Great. And thank you, Chairman Thompson.
    The chair would request that other Members submit their 
opening statements for the record so the witness may begin her 
testimony and to ensure that there is ample time for questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Miller of Ohio follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Max L. Miller, a Representative in Congress 
                               from Ohio
    Ohio is one of the top leading producers for livestock, 
representing about \1/2\ of all Ohio agriculture production.

   Ohio's cattle farmers raise approximately 296,000 cows

   There are about 2,200 dairy farms in Ohio

   Ohio raises more than 2.95 million hogs each year

    As such, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Animal and 
Plant Health Inspection Service's ``APHIS'' efforts working with state 
and local partners toward detection, prevention and rapid response 
tools remain critical to address any potential animal disease outbreak.
    Ohio ranks seventh in the nation in pork production and with 25 
percent of pork goods exported, threats relating to foreign animal 
diseases are a constant concern. Pork producers continue to face 
increasing threats from foreign animal disease including African Swine 
Fever. If a foreign animal disease outbreak were to occur, U.S. farmers 
would immediately turn to APHIS, state animal health officials, and 
other stakeholders for:

   early detection, prevention and rapid response tools;

   robust laboratory capacity for surveillance;

   and a viable stockpile of vaccines to rapidly respond to the 
        introduction of a high-consequence diseases.

    A foreign animal disease outbreak would immediately impact the 
entire agricultural sector, and stifle needed foods supplies.
          * * * * *
    We look forward to the 2023 Farm Bill to review and strengthen 
programs that safeguard the nation's food supply against threats posed 
by foreign animal diseases, including veterinary diagnostic 
laboratories to test for new or emerging animal diseases, as well as 
funding to support animal disease surveillance.

    The Chairman. Our witness for today's hearing is USDA's 
Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs, Jenny 
Lester Moffitt. She is accompanied today by Dr. Alecia Naugle, 
who is the Associate Deputy Administrator for Veterinary 
Services at USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services.
    Under Secretary Lester Moffitt, thank you for joining us 
today. We will now proceed to your testimony. You will have 5 
minutes. The timer in front of you will count down to 0, at 
which point your time has expired. Under Secretary Lester 
Moffitt, please begin when you are ready.

         STATEMENT OF HON. JENNY LESTER MOFFITT, UNDER 
            SECRETARY FOR MARKETING AND REGULATORY 
           PROGRAMS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 
  WASHINGTON, D.C.; ACCOMPANIED BY ALECIA L. NAUGLE, D.V.M., 
            Ph.D., ASSOCIATE DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, 
         VETERINARY SERVICES, ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH 
                    INSPECTION SERVICE, USDA

    Ms. Moffitt. Thank you, Chairman Mann, Ranking Member 
Costa, Chairman Thompson, and Members of the Subcommittee. 
Thank you for the opportunity to be here to testify today.
    As you mentioned, Chairman Mann, I am joined by Dr. Alecia 
Naugle, Associate Deputy Administrator for the Animal and Plant 
Health Inspection Services Veterinary Services Program. She 
works closely with Dr. Rosemary Sifford, the U.S. Chief 
Veterinary Officer. Together, they lead a workforce of 
veterinarians and other personnel dedicated to protecting the 
health and marketability of American livestock.
    As Chairman Thompson mentioned, every day, APHIS employees 
are out on the field, on farms, at the borders inspecting and 
conducting surveillance of animal diseases. They are working 
directly with individual farmers, ranchers, veterinarians, 
states, and Tribal officials. They share best practices about 
biosecurity and preparedness. They oversee imports and exports 
of animals and animal products to ensure continued safe trade, 
protecting existing and opening new markets for agricultural 
products here and abroad.
    Their efforts to protect these markets has been greatly 
enhanced by the new animal health programs Congress provided in 
the last farm bill. The new authorities and additional funding 
are working. We are better prepared today because of those 
programs. The 2018 Farm Bill gave us three interlocking 
programs. They work incredibly well together and allow us to 
form stronger partnerships with producers, states, 
veterinarians, and others. These programs, coupled with 
appropriations and the Secretary's ability to transfer funds 
from the Commodity Credit Corporation, help us respond and be 
prepared. All of us have a stake in keeping foreign animal 
diseases out of the country, and these tools help us work 
together.
    The National Animal Disease Preparedness and Response 
Program, or NADPRP as we call it, has allowed us to fund 180 
different projects with our partners. We have funded projects 
that have increased our surveillance for significant animal 
diseases and that have enhanced our ability to standardize 
sample collection. NADPRP has let us fund training exercises 
and new methods for recovering from disease outbreaks. Key is 
that it is not just us doing this important work but also our 
partners and cooperators who bring their expertise in U.S. 
animal health as well.
    These projects fill important needs. They identify and 
close small gaps in our overall preparedness and response 
programs. We regularly say that an ounce of prevention is worth 
a pound in cure. By that standard, this program is worth its 
weight in gold.
    The other two programs that the farm bill authorizes are 
also critically important. We have funded over $20 million 
worth of projects for the National Animal Health Laboratory 
Network. We know that speed is important with animal health 
emergencies, and having a broad network of laboratories to 
identify where disease is lets us quickly eradicate it and 
reduce the spread.
    The third program, the National Animal Vaccine and 
Veterinary Countermeasures Bank, we know that we have kept 
foot-and-mouth disease out of the country for nearly a century, 
and we are confident that the system of overlapping safeguards 
that we have in place will continue to work. However, given the 
massive cost that an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease would 
cause, having vaccine at the ready is a very prudent measure, 
an insurance policy should the worst occur.
    These programs have better prepared us for foreign animal 
diseases, but they are also building off of existing expertise 
that APHIS has in preparing for and responding to disease such 
as the outbreak of highly-pathogenic avian influenza. We know 
that our methods in stamping out high-path AI are working. In 
March 2023, we had just five cases in commercial facilities 
when in March last year, we saw ten times that amount. We know 
how and where to look for high-path AI. We know how to respond 
quickly so producers can get back to producing food, how 
important biosecurity is, and how to keep trade markets open as 
well. We also know from our partners at the Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention that the currently circulating virus 
strain poses a low human health risk to the public. And if 
high-path AI cases surge again, with continued partnership with 
states and producers, we know what to do, and we are ready.
    With respect to African swine fever, our efforts continue 
to keep this deadly virus offshore. We have enhanced 
inspections, increased our surveillance capabilities, and 
educated producers and veterinarians about the signs and risks 
of the virus. I remain confident that we can keep this disease 
away, but we are all prepared to respond to any incursion, and 
the farm bill programs have helped us improve our readiness.
    Mr. Chairman, we always want to keep these foreign animal 
diseases out of our country, and these new tools that Congress 
has given us have enhanced our efforts. We are better prepared 
to detect, to respond, and to eliminate foreign animal diseases 
because of them.
    I look forward to your questions. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Moffitt follows:]

 Prepared Statement of Hon. Jenny Lester Moffitt, Under Secretary for 
  Marketing and Regulatory Programs, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 
                            Washington, D.C.
    Chairman Mann, Ranking Member Costa, and Members of the 
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on this 
important topic. As Under Secretary for the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture's Marketing and Regulatory Programs, I see up close every 
day how the hard-working employees of the Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service (APHIS) are protecting and enhancing the health of 
our nation's livestock and poultry.
    I am joined by Dr. Alecia Naugle, Associate Deputy Administrator of 
APHIS' Veterinary Services program. She works closely with Dr. Rosemary 
Sifford, the Chief Veterinary Officer of the United States. Together 
they guide a workforce of veterinarians and other personnel dedicated 
to protecting the health and marketability of American livestock.
    Their work is essential because too many farmers are in a 
precarious position--an outbreak of an animal disease on their farm 
would be disastrous. While the last couple of years have seen record 
national farm income, we know that nearly 50% of American farmers have 
had negative farm income. Our data shows that 40% of farms are small 
and midsize farms where the primary occupation of the household is 
farming, but the majority of their income to support their families is 
from off-farm sources. Only 11% of American farmers are mid-sized or 
larger--representing over 80% of the value of U.S. agricultural 
production, which drove the record-level farm income at a time when so 
many were struggling. And lest we not forget that 2% of those farms 
that did exceedingly well were actually owned by investment banks and 
institutional investors. Our farmers and ranchers deserve the 
opportunity to compete in a marketplace where they have a shot at being 
profitable.
    Farmers and ranchers also face a changing climate which is causing 
animal and pest populations to shift into new or expanded habitats. 
This movement can result in increased spread of pests and diseases. 
Under the leadership of the Biden-Harris Administration and Secretary 
Vilsack, USDA has been working hard to make our food supply chain more 
resilient and provide rural communities with the tools they need to 
thrive through investments in developing more, new, and better markets 
for farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners.
    USDA's efforts to protect animal health are fundamental to 
achieving this goal. Every day, APHIS employees are out in the field, 
on farms, and at the borders, inspecting and conducting surveillance 
for animal diseases. They are working directly with individual farmers 
and ranchers, veterinarians, states, and Tribal officials. They share 
information and best practices about biosecurity and preparedness. They 
oversee imports and exports of animals and animal products to ensure 
continued safe trade, protecting and opening markets for agricultural 
products here and abroad.
The 2022-2023 Outbreak of Highly-Pathogenic Avian Influenza
    Since the first commercial detection of highly-pathogenic avian 
influenza (HPAI) in Indiana in February of last year, APHIS and its 
state partners have responded aggressively, relying on long-established 
and well-practiced disease response plans that are proven to eradicate 
this virus from commercial facilities. And we have been successful. 
Compared to this time last year, we have a small fraction of the number 
of positive premises in commercial flocks: five in March of 2023 
compared to 51 in March of 2022. We know the virus load remains 
prevalent in our wild bird population and APHIS, in partnership with 
states and industry, remains vigilant.
    Our colleagues at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 
(CDC) continue to assess that the circulating virus poses a low risk to 
human health, so we remain focused on limited impacts to animal health.
    The 2014-2015 outbreak of HPAI taught us the value of biosecurity. 
Since then, USDA has emphasized its importance at every opportunity and 
our efforts have had meaningful results. Producers have made 
significant improvements in biosecurity, detection, and monitoring on 
their farms, which has resulted in very little lateral, farm-to-farm 
spread during this latest outbreak. In the 2014-2015 outbreak, 
approximately 70% of the cases were due to lateral spread. In this 
outbreak, lateral spread accounts for just 16% of the cases, a 
remarkable improvement. But that number could be even smaller. Our 
efforts show that even minor biosecurity measures have a massive impact 
on whether the virus impacts a farm. We continue to stress more than 
anything else, the importance of strong biosecurity to every producer--
from the largest commercial-scale farms to smallest backyard flocks. 
And we ask for your continued partnership in sharing the important 
message of biosecurity with poultry producers in your districts. Our 
Defend the Flock campaign outlines resources and steps that every 
producer can take to safeguard the health of their birds.
    Our counterparts at the Agricultural Research Service are hard at 
work developing a vaccine to counter the strains of the virus currently 
circulating so that we are prepared in the unlikely event if we should 
ever need to turn to vaccination to complement our eradication efforts. 
This work is ongoing, and it will still be a while before a vaccine 
could be commercially available and easily applied. Even then, there 
would be many factors we would weigh before authorizing its use, 
especially with respect to the likely trade impacts of a vaccination 
campaign. We will continue to discuss these issues with stakeholders 
and our trading partners and weigh all these perspectives before making 
any decisions on policy.
    At this stage of the outbreak, continuing our current strategy of 
eradication or ``stamping out'' HPAI is our best and most effective 
option. We can rapidly contain and eliminate the virus in commercial 
poultry; in fact, the majority of cases in recent months have been 
backyard flocks. APHIS and our state and industry partners and 
producers respond quickly and aggressively to reduce viral spread among 
poultry operations through rapid depopulation and disposal, and 
surveillance testing for the virus in high-risk geographic areas.
    On top of the field veterinarians and support staff who have been 
leading the emergency response, I would like to highlight the excellent 
work the APHIS trade staff has done in keeping as many export markets 
open as possible. While some of these negotiations are done after we 
experience an outbreak, APHIS has also made great strides in securing 
regionalization agreements to prevent market disruptions. APHIS' 
efforts on regionalization have ensured a science- and risk-based 
approach that is consistent with APHIS obligations under international 
trade agreements and the continued free flow of agricultural trade. 
Instead of limiting U.S. exports from the entire country, these 
negotiated agreements are often at the state or county level and are 
consistent with approaches to address HPAI in a science-based and trade 
facilitative manner. As a result, a contained outbreak in one part of a 
state may have little bearing on the export possibilities of producers 
in other parts of a state. This has been a huge benefit to producers 
across the country and these efforts have greatly helped producers stay 
afloat during these challenging times.
    I thank every APHIS employee who has been deployed around the 
country, often for weeks at a time, away from family and friends, to 
respond to this outbreak and I thank our state partners for also 
responding aggressively. This outbreak has highlighted the critical 
need for public sector animal health professionals, specifically 
veterinarians. We need a robust state and Federal workforce ready to 
respond to any outbreak. We are continually evaluating opportunities to 
recruit and retain talented professionals as well as encourage more 
students to consider careers in animal science. Unfortunately, 
veterinary student loan debt and other limitations may make public 
sector positions less attractive to new graduates. We look forward to 
working with Members of the Subcommittee and both chambers to identify 
solutions to workforce challenges, especially in retaining highly 
qualified, skilled professionals for the benefit of livestock and 
poultry producers.
2018 Farm Bill Section 12101: Animal Disease Prevention and Management
    We know that responding to animal health emergencies is difficult 
and incredibly costly. The Secretary has used his emergency authority 
to transfer nearly $800 million from the Commodity Credit Corporation 
to combat the HPAI outbreak. The 2014-2015 outbreak cost taxpayers 
around $1 billion. An outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease or African 
swine fever would have even more devastating economic consequences for 
the country, producers, and consumers, with costs to the government and 
producers into the tens of billions. Prevention and preparedness are 
essential if we are to protect U.S. agriculture, our export markets, 
and the stability of the U.S. food supply.
    That is why we are so appreciative of the tools that Congress gave 
us in the 2018 Farm Bill. The bill created a three-tiered program to 
support animal disease prevention and preparedness. It included the new 
National Animal Disease Preparedness and Response Program (NADPRP), the 
new National Animal Vaccine and Veterinary Countermeasures Bank 
(NAVVCB), and additional funding for the National Animal Health 
Laboratory Network (NAHLN). We are incredibly thankful for your 
leadership in establishing these new tools and we have worked 
diligently to fully implement these programs.
    NADPRP gives APHIS additional resources to work with its partners 
to expand the reach of its animal health programs and to identify and 
fill in gaps in our existing preparedness and response capabilities. 
Under NADPRP, APHIS provides funds to states, universities, industry 
organizations, Tribal partners, and other eligible entities to support 
projects that help prevent and prepare for the most serious animal 
diseases that threaten U.S. livestock, poultry, and related industries. 
Collectively, NADPRP projects boost the nation's capacity and 
capability to detect, respond to, and recover from animal disease 
outbreaks that may impact all livestock and poultry sectors and all 
livestock and poultry operation types and sizes.
    NADPRP projects develop programs and provide resources to:

   increase producer's use of effective and practical 
        biosecurity measures;

   training and exercises for animal agriculture emergency 
        responders and producers;

   educate livestock and poultry owners on disease prevention 
        and build awareness of what happens in an outbreak;

   develop and implement carcass disposal and decontamination 
        techniques;

   create and test animal movement plans for outbreak 
        scenarios; and,

   help states develop and exercise animal disease response 
        plans to enhance their readiness to quickly control high-
        consequence animal disease outbreaks.

    One major NADPRP success story is the Certified Swine Sample 
Collector Training Program, a cooperative agreement with Iowa State 
University, which has become a cornerstone of our African swine fever 
prevention efforts. Iowa State worked cooperatively with major swine 
industry organizations to develop, evaluate, and improve this highly 
regarded and frequently used training program. NADPRP funded online 
training videos and other materials to educate sample collectors, and 
the swine industry has been instrumental in sharing this program with 
producers and encouraging participation. This program is part of a 
national diagnostic sample collection training program designed to 
assure state and Federal animal health officials that producers, 
caretakers, and other pork industry personnel have been trained through 
a standardized process by accredited veterinarians to correctly 
collect, handle, and submit samples. This would be invaluable in the 
unlikely event of an outbreak.
    Overall, about 24 percent of NADPRP projects have been focused on 
improving biosecurity, the importance of which we now see with the HPAI 
outbreak. About \1/3\ have been focused on improvements for 
depopulation and disposal, which would be critical in the event of an 
outbreak. The program has greatly improved the reach of our animal 
health efforts and improved our preparedness and ability to respond to 
foreign animal pests and diseases.
    Last month, APHIS announced the FY 2023 list of projects funded 
under this section of the farm bill. We awarded $15.8 million to 60 
projects led by 38 states, land-grant universities, and industry 
organizations to enhance our nation's ability to rapidly respond to and 
control animal disease outbreaks. This year's projects focused on 
enhancing prevention, preparedness, early detection, and rapid response 
to the most damaging diseases that threaten U.S. livestock. Projects 
will help states develop and practice plans to quickly control disease 
outbreaks, train responders and producers to perform critical animal 
disease outbreak response activities, increase producer use of 
effective and practical biosecurity measures, educate livestock owners 
on preventing disease and what happens in an outbreak, and support 
animal movement decisions in animal disease outbreaks, among others. 
APHIS also intends to fund additional projects that will be led by 
Tribal partners and will announce those projects this spring.
    The 2018 Farm Bill provided additional funding for NAHLN. NAHLN is 
a nationally coordinated network and partnership of 60 Federal, state, 
and university-associated animal health laboratories, which provides 
animal health diagnostic testing to detect biological threats to the 
nation's food animals, thus protecting animal health, public health, 
and the nation's food supply. We are thankful to Congress for their 
ongoing support for NAHLN through annual appropriations bills, which 
provides most of the Federal funding for the network. Funding provided 
by the farm bill supplements the existing yearly appropriation and 
allows the laboratories to take on new and important projects that 
enhance coordination and animal health diagnostics. As we saw with the 
HPAI outbreak, the labs that are part of NAHLN are the backbone of our 
disease surveillance and response, rapidly detecting disease and 
providing insight into where to focus our eradication efforts.
    APHIS has awarded $21 million in funding from the farm bill to the 
NAHLN laboratories over the past 3 years, including a few projects 
funded jointly with NADPRP. We plan to award an additional $7.5 million 
this year. It is also worth noting that many NAHLN labs served as surge 
capacity for human COVID-19 testing during the height of the pandemic, 
demonstrating their value to our overall national healthcare 
infrastructure beyond their critical role for animal health.
    The third component to the farm bill's animal health program is the 
National Animal Vaccine and Veterinary Countermeasures Bank. While our 
ultimate goal is to keep foreign animal pests and diseases out of the 
country entirely, the vaccine and countermeasures bank will allow us to 
respond quickly should a high consequence disease strike the United 
States. Per the direction from Congress, the bank is primarily focused 
on vaccines and countermeasures that would target an outbreak of foot-
and-mouth disease (FMD). APHIS has kept FMD out of the country for 
nearly a century and we are confident that the system of overlapping 
safeguards we have in place--including the exclusion of imports from 
affected countries and at-the-border inspections of animals and animal 
products--will continue to keep the disease out. However, given the 
massive costs an outbreak of FMD would cause, having a vaccine at the 
ready is a prudent measure which would work with our existing 
inspection and eradication measures, and is an insurance policy should 
the worst occur.
    The vaccine bank is focused on providing coverage for the highest 
priority strains of the FMD virus. APHIS, on the advice of the 
technical committee that provides scientific recommendations and 
oversees and guides the vaccine bank, has provided more than $56 
million for the purchase of vaccine antigen concentrate and will invest 
an additional $15 million this year.
    Although much of the focus has been on acquiring vaccine antigen 
concentrate, we also invested $520,000 in other countermeasures, such 
as diagnostic test kits for foot-and-mouth disease and African swine 
fever for the first time in 2022. We have a sources--sought notice open 
to gather worldwide information regarding available test kits for those 
two diseases and classical swine fever. We will make future purchases 
after reviewing the responses, with the intent to purchase from more 
than one source to ensure an adequate supply in case of an outbreak.
Response to the Threat of African Swine Fever
    I mentioned previously how important it is to keep foreign animal 
diseases out of the country. That is why APHIS took immediate steps to 
strengthen our defenses when, for the first time in several decades, we 
detected African swine fever (ASF) in the Western Hemisphere. ASF is a 
devastating, deadly disease of swine that would have a significant 
impact on U.S. pork producers and the economy if it were to be detected 
in the United States. There is no treatment or vaccine available for 
this disease approved for use in the United States, although we are 
hopeful that the work of our colleagues in the Agricultural Research 
Service will soon yield a vaccine that is fully tested and ready for 
commercial production. The only way to stop ASF is to temporarily halt 
the movement of all pigs and depopulate all affected or exposed swine 
herds. A detection here would immediately close overseas export 
markets, which are critical to the profitability of the swine industry, 
and it would take many months or years to fully restore those markets.
    When an existing cooperative disease surveillance program 
identified the virus in pigs in the Dominican Republic in July 2021 and 
later in Haiti, APHIS took swift action to augment and enhance its many 
existing defenses. We already have a strong system of overlapping 
safeguards in place, including restrictions against imports of animals 
or pork products from ASF-affected countries. We looked closely at 
potential pathways the virus could enter and worked with our partners 
to close them. For example, our U.S. Customs and Border Protection 
colleagues enhanced inspections of passengers coming from the region 
and are closely monitoring the handling of regulated garbage from 
airplanes. We worked with the Coast Guard to identify boats traveling 
to Puerto Rico whose passengers could unintentionally carry the virus 
and have conducted appropriate disease surveillance where the boats 
were detected.
    Most notably, we established a protection zone around Puerto Rico 
and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Since those are U.S. Territories, any 
incursion of ASF onto those islands could trigger trading partners to 
cut off trade from the mainland. The World Organisation for Animal 
Health permits the establishment of a protection zone within an area 
free of disease, as a temporary measure in response to an increased 
risk from a neighboring country or zone of different animal health 
status. The protection zone we created allows the continental U.S. to 
retain its disease-free status and continue our international trade, 
even if there is an ASF detection in Puerto Rico or the U.S. Virgin 
Islands. It also allows APHIS to enhance surveillance and create 
additional rules for movement restrictions of live swine and products 
out of the protection zone, protecting the islands from the virus and 
enhancing protections for the U.S. livestock industry.
    Beyond establishing the protection zone, we are focusing additional 
resources on Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. We have removed 
feral swine in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands because feral 
swine are a natural reservoir for the disease and could help the virus 
spread quickly if it moved to those territories. We have also made 
improvements to the diagnostic laboratory in Puerto Rico, providing 
resources and technical assistance to increase that lab's capabilities 
to run important diagnostic tests. We have enhanced inspections of 
passengers traveling to and through the territories. We have run a 
bilingual public education campaign in those territories and the region 
to educate the public, veterinarians, and producers about the risks of 
ASF and how they can help stop the spread of the virus.
    The Secretary, using his emergency transfer authority under the 
Animal Health Protection Act, transferred $500 million from the 
Commodity Credit Corporation for these and other enhanced ASF 
prevention and response activities. APHIS has used that funding to 
strengthen its response activities and has placed teams of 
veterinarians and animal health officials in the region. APHIS 
officials are working closely with the Dominican Republic, providing 
technical and financial assistance for a plan to control the disease in 
the country, thereby strengthening the animal health security of our 
domestic producers. APHIS is also working closely with the Dominican 
Republic to modernize and support their animal health laboratory 
capabilities, ensuring effective and proactive surveillance testing is 
available in the region. In Haiti, APHIS is focused on providing 
supplies and remote technical laboratory support to agricultural 
officials and is working with them on long-range plans, although the 
political instability of that country presents an ongoing challenge. We 
will continue to work with animal health officials in the region in 
further developing those plans and do everything we can to keep this 
high consequence disease out of the country.
    Domestically, we have built upon our existing system of safeguards 
to strengthen our defenses here. We have trained 65 additional detector 
dog teams who work with U.S. Customs and Border Protection at key 
commercial seaports and airports. We have ramped up testing capacity at 
our National Animal Health Laboratory Network. We also developed an 
extensive public outreach campaign, including advertising and signage 
at the largest international airports and digital advertising related 
to searches and other requests for information about international 
travel. We have also specifically geared information campaigns towards 
veterinarians and producers, educating them about ASF and what the 
signs of it are so that they can enhance our surveillance for the 
disease.
Animal Disease Traceability
    Earlier this year, we issued a proposed rule that would update our 
animal disease traceability regulations. The rule would require 
electronic identification for interstate movement of certain cattle and 
bison, which would strengthen the nation's ability to quickly respond 
to significant animal disease outbreaks. Major animal disease outbreaks 
hurt our ranchers and farmers and all those who support them along the 
supply chain, threaten our food security, and impact our ability to 
trade America's high-quality food products around the world. Rapid 
traceability in a disease outbreak could help ranchers and farmers get 
back to selling their products more quickly; limit how long farms are 
quarantined; and keep more animals from getting sick.
    We recently extended the comment period for that proposed rule and 
are accepting comments through April 19. We have received over 1,000 
comments already, and I can assure you that we will carefully review 
those and use that information to determine our next steps on this 
important initiative.
The Agricultural Quarantine Inspection Program
    Before I conclude, I'd be remiss if I didn't note our appreciation 
for what this Committee and the Appropriations Committees have done to 
help shore up funding for the Agricultural Quarantine Inspection (AQI) 
program over the last few years. AQI is the backbone of our efforts to 
protect plant and animal health. With our frontline partners at U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the program provides the series of 
overlapping safeguards that ensure commodities, cargo, and passengers 
entering the country do not harbor harmful pests or diseases. Whether 
from the APHIS scientific, technical, and regulatory officials deciding 
what can be imported safely under what conditions and from where, CBP's 
inspectors looking through cargo, or the APHIS-trained beagle brigade 
sniffing out passenger baggage and cargo for meat and other 
agricultural products, the systems we have in place protect U.S. 
agricultural resources.
    During the pandemic, owing to changes in travel patterns, the user-
fee funded program faced shortfalls that could have led to widespread 
furloughs curtailing our ability to conduct these inspections and 
scientific and technical work. Thankfully, Congress stepped in, giving 
the program necessary funding to fill the gap, and we are back on 
strong footing.
    Nevertheless, it has been many years since those user fees were 
last adjusted and changes in transportation and conveyance methods and 
sizes have rendered those fees outdated. We are in the process of 
developing an updated fee schedule, which is going through the 
rulemaking process. While we are still early in this process, we will 
certainly keep this Subcommittee informed of our progress.
Conclusion
    Again, I appreciate the opportunity to highlight these important 
programs for you today. I know we are in the midst of another farm bill 
cycle. The enhanced tools that Congress gave us in the 2018 Farm Bill 
have had very positive outcomes for our animal health programs and we 
are certain that the Subcommittee's work on the next farm bill will 
continue the critical work of safeguarding animal health. We stand 
ready to support you as you develop this important legislation and 
appreciate your understanding that ``An ounce of prevention is worth a 
pound of cure.''
    Thank you for inviting me to join you today. I'm happy to answer 
your questions.

    The Chairman. Thank you for your important testimony 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 us after 
this hearing convened. You will be recognized for 5 minutes 
each in order to allow us to get as many questions in as 
possible.
    First, I will recognize myself for 5 minutes.
    Under Secretary Moffitt, as I mentioned in my opening 
statement, the last farm bill included historic investments in 
animal health programs, including the National Animal Health 
Laboratory Network, the National Animal Disease Preparedness 
and Response Program, and the National Animal Vaccine and 
Veterinary Countermeasures Bank, not to mention the work to 
solidify the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility that is 
currently being constructed and is almost completed in the big 
1st District of Kansas.
    Can you talk about how these farm bill programs are used to 
complement other programs and funding streams to bolster APHIS' 
ability to carry out one of its core missions, protecting the 
health of the U.S. animal population?
    Ms. Moffitt. Chairman Mann, thank you so much for that 
question. As I outlined in the testimony and as you just talked 
about, the three different programs interlocking together are 
very important. I come from production agriculture myself, and 
the importance of a farmer to be able to have many different 
tools is similar to our own APHIS animal disease preparedness 
response, as well, to be able to have funding, to be able to do 
tabletop exercises, other exercises so that we are ready and 
prepared to be able to respond to animal disease outbreaks, as 
well as, of course, the lab network--the extensive lab network 
throughout the country, and then of course the insurance policy 
through the vaccine bank. All of these things are important.
    And your question about how we supplement that with the 
existing resources, annual appropriations that APHIS and USDA 
received, writ large, is a very important part of that. We have 
an incredible team at APHIS that Chairman Thompson mentioned, 
and a lot of that funding comes through annual appropriations. 
The lab network in fact is also funded through annual 
appropriations as well.
    And then finally, I will just emphasize when and should we 
have an animal disease outbreak like high-path AI, the 
importance of being able to use CCC funding to be able to 
manage that outbreak is important as well.
    The Chairman. Thank you. As we work to reauthorize these 
programs through the next farm bill, is there anything in 
particular that you would advise that this Committee consider?
    Ms. Moffitt. I think one thing that is really important 
about the funding and the authority that was provided through 
those three different programs in the 2018 Farm Bill is the 
flexibility that is allowed there so that our staff and our 
team of animal health responders have that flexibility. I think 
that is such an important part.
    Of course, we will continue to work through the lab 
network. We will continue to work in all of the different 
pieces of that. We also know that we have over 800 APHIS staff 
who have been deployed at least once in a 6 week period many 
multiple times, so building up our workforce is a very 
important part of that as well.
    The Chairman. Yes, I agree. Thank you. On January 19, 2023, 
APHIS proposed a rule that would require electronic 
identification, or EID, ear tags for purposes of animal disease 
traceability and as a requisite for official interstate 
movement of certain cattle and bison. While I understand the 
goals here will obviously come with added cost to producers in 
my district in Kansas and across the country, in the past, 
APHIS has provided free EID tags and financial assistance for 
related infrastructure to prepare for compliance efforts with 
such a regulation. So I am curious, what are the Department's 
plans for mitigating the cost to producers and other entities 
like sale barns for compliance with this rule, should it become 
final?
    Ms. Moffitt. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for recognizing 
the work that APHIS has done in the past in providing animal 
ear tags. Over 19 million ear tags have been distributed 
already by APHIS. This rule right now is in draft form. I think 
we have received over 1,000 public comments so far, and the 
rule closes tomorrow, and so we are still accepting public 
comments. We will take those public comments as we will look 
at, as the team at APHIS looks at drafting the final rule and 
taking into consideration impacts and opportunities for small 
producers, large producers, and everyone in between.
    Should there be funding allowed and funding available, we 
can continue to look at ways that we can distribute additional 
ear tags. We are also working with sale barns and auction barns 
and distributing and handing out readers as well so that when 
animals come to auction, there is an ability to be able to 
identify them as well.
    The Chairman. Yes, thank you. We ought to remember what 
these regulations mean to producers, so I appreciate your 
comment.
    One last question, I am also closely monitoring the Food 
and Drug Administration's proposed changes to long-standing 
labeling requirements for re-implanting of shorter-acting 
growth implants for cattle. While I understand this is not a 
USDA issue, I do want to mention that USDA should be at the 
table when FDA is making decisions like these that would 
abruptly stop a common practice that could adversely impact the 
industry. How is USDA working with FDA on these proposed 
changes?
    Ms. Moffitt. Well, thank you for that question. USDA 
continuously works with FDA on a myriad of different issues 
where we share common ground, we share common work, and we 
would be happy to work with FDA on working through this issue 
as well so that the voices of agriculture and the perspective 
that USDA can bring are a part of the decision for FDA.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Yes, please do as this regulation 
will certainly negatively impact our cattle producers and, at 
the end, will increase the cost of our food supply at a time of 
rising inflation, so thank you.
    With that, I now recognize the Ranking Member, the 
gentleman from California, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Costa. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Before I get into my questions, I want to make a couple of 
observations. We talked about the three programs that we 
initiated in the last farm bill, the vaccine bank, the National 
Animal Preparedness Response Program, and the Animal Health 
Laboratory Network. But I want to note that, frankly, these 
programs are only as effective as the people that enact them. 
An effective response is dependent upon a highly trained 
veterinarian and support staff who can work with stakeholders 
to contain the certain outbreaks. We have a shortage of 
veterinarians across the country. We need to do and take into 
consideration I think in the farm bill a strong pipeline of the 
veterinarian professionals so that we can continue to support 
the efforts of APHIS, which is so important that we have and 
maintain a trained staff to address outbreaks.
    And so the farm bill of course does a host of things to 
ensure, as I said earlier, maintaining food security and that 
food security is a national issue. We just need to remember, I 
believe, that the past year, the cost of an outbreak will far 
exceed the cost of supporting disease prevention programs. 
Remember that. The cost of an outbreak far exceeds the cost of 
these prevention programs.
    With that said, Secretary Moffitt, looking at the current 
response, you partially answered that question in answer to the 
Chairman's question in terms of what improvements you think 
need to be made to optimize future outbreaks. And is there the 
authority with APHIS that would provide a more effective 
response? And because of your previous experience not just as a 
farmer, producer in California's Department of Food and 
Agriculture, how do you think we can more closely coordinate 
the efforts between state and Federal efforts to manage these 
diseases?
    Ms. Moffitt. Well, thank you for that question. And, I 
think there are a few things. So, first, as you recognize, 
coming from the California Department of Food and Agriculture, 
in fact in I think early 2020 before the pandemic, thanks to 
funding from NADPRP and through the partnership that the state 
and Federal Government really strongly have in collaboration, 
we did a tabletop exercise should there be a foot-and-mouth 
disease outbreak in the dairy industry in California. So that 
funding, I know firsthand how important it can be for states in 
readiness and preparedness, as well as of course with industry 
partners and university and land-grant partners as well.
    Mr. Costa. That partnership is critical.
    Ms. Moffitt. Yes, it is.
    Mr. Costa. And we need to build on it. Our trading partners 
often use non-tariff barriers to deal with their internal 
politics in terms of our ability to trade. And I am wondering 
if you have developed a strategy toward maintaining our trade 
efforts when we have efforts to vaccinate, especially in light 
of the high-path impacts and the potential and concerns about 
them. And of course, we have dealt with depopulation, as you 
well know.
    Ms. Moffitt. Yes, so your question relates as we are 
looking at all different tools in the tool chest, they are very 
important. And you asked about the different mechanisms that we 
have. And Dr. Naugle can talk a little bit about some of the 
lessons that we are learning in the current outbreak and how we 
are applying that.
    But I will just quickly answer the vaccine question. It is 
very important as we consider vaccine, first off, we are many, 
many, many months, in fact, 18 to 24 months down the road. ARS 
is not really doing research trials at this point. But, it is 
important that as we look at and evaluate a potential for a 
vaccine, we are looking at things like human health, animal 
health, trade impacts, and also implementation of the vaccine 
strategy. So there are many things that we would be factoring 
and weighing----
    Mr. Costa. Yes, my time is expiring here. Doctor, quickly, 
how do our trading partners look at our ability to maintain 
high standards to contain any health impacts? Could you comment 
quickly?
    Dr. Naugle. Yes, I mean, our trade partners, we are working 
actively with many different trade partners around the world on 
a regionalization approach so that we have in place--and this 
is something we developed since the 2015 outbreak--strong 
regionalization approach for both high-path AI, as well as we 
are developing it for African swine fever.
    Mr. Costa. And our efforts to improve diagnostic and 
surveillance technology comes hand-in-hand with it, right?
    Dr. Naugle. Absolutely. Absolutely. If we know where the 
disease is----
    Mr. Costa. How are we doing there?
    Dr. Naugle.--we can keep it--sir?
    Mr. Costa. Well, my time has expired. I was asking how are 
we doing there to improve diagnostic and surveillance 
technology.
    Dr. Naugle. How will we improve it? We will constantly 
improve it. We are working with our labs network around the 
country. Rapid detection and diagnostic technology is really 
important, and some of the funding for the lab network has also 
been for rapid diagnostic testing as well.
    Mr. Costa. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Great. The chair recognizes the gentleman 
from Alabama and my good friend, Congressman Moore, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Moore. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Over the Easter break I had some hearings with our ag--we 
call them listening sessions in Alabama. And one of the things 
that I noticed, is that feral hogs are starting to be an issue. 
And I can remember growing up we had a military base, Fort 
Rucker, they were getting kind of in the farmers' land now, but 
it seemed like all over the district, in the 2nd Congressional 
District, we have these questions about feral hogs. And I was 
really glad we had the pilot program in 2018 before I got here 
that my colleagues put in. But if you don't mind, Under 
Secretary or Dr. Naugle, if you all could kind of elaborate on 
some of the things that are going on for the feral swine, the 
control process and what the outlook is, if we have any 
optimistic predictions for the future.
    Ms. Moffitt. Yes, thank you for recognizing the pilot 
program. That is a partnership with NRCS and APHIS together, 
which I think is a really unique opportunity in a pilot to 
really come together and take a whole-of-USDA approach, 
improved access to landowners. We have worked with over 6,000 
landowners in the country through this pilot program and 
partnered on over 8 million acres of land to work on removing 
and eradicating feral hogs. This is complementary to annual 
appropriations that APHIS continues to receive and has received 
since 2014. We have been successful today in successfully 
eradicating feral hogs from seven states, and we are close to 
four more additional states.
    Mr. Moore. I hope Alabama is on one of those lists.
    What are you guys seeing that you feel good about in the 
program as far as eradication? I understand there are some 
medications, there are some treatments they are finding that 
seem to be working. Is that the case, Dr. Naugle? Is that what 
you are seeing?
    Ms. Moffitt. Yes, Dr. Naugle?
    Dr. Naugle. Yes, our Wildlife Services Unit uses a variety 
of complementary tools to be able to eradicate those hogs.
    Mr. Moore. Thank you. Now, onto the next question I got a 
lot of concern about last week was chronic wasting disease, and 
how it's wreaked havoc on deer populations across the country. 
I was happy for the passage of the Chronic Wasting Disease 
Research and Management Act last Congress, which authorized 
additional annual funding to be divided equally between CWD 
research and state and Tribal CWD management efforts. Under 
Secretary Moffitt and Dr. Naugle, can you talk about APHIS' 
ongoing work to manage CWD and the promising developments on 
that front as well?
    Ms. Moffitt. Yes, I will kick it off and pass it on to Dr. 
Naugle. Yes, as you mentioned, chronic wasting disease is 
absolutely devastating in so many states. Chairman Thompson 
also mentioned that as well. We were pleased that we were able 
to, thanks again to funding that we have received through 
Congress, be able to allocate another $12 million toward that 
combination of research and state partnerships because that is 
such an important thing, the mix of both understanding, as well 
as applying our work together.
    And I will pass it to Dr. Naugle.
    Dr. Naugle. Yes, I will extend a little bit on Under 
Secretary Moffitt's comment about the funding we have provided 
to states, Tribes, and universities. In 2022, we provided $9.5 
million to those states, Tribes, universities for these 
cooperative agreements that help them control CWD not only in 
farm-cervid populations but wild-cervid populations as well, 
and we just announced last week the additional $12 million. I 
am very excited about that.
    Within APHIS, we really have two approaches. On the 
wildlife side, our Wildlife Services, again, conducts research 
and supports wildlife management activities with regard to CWD, 
and on the Farm Service side we do have our voluntary herd 
certification program, of which 28 states participate in.
    Mr. Moore. Thank you, Dr. Naugle.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Next, I now recognize the gentlewoman from Connecticut for 
5 minutes.
    Mrs. Hayes. Thank you. Animal diseases can be devastating 
to any farm but especially to the small family farms that 
represent the majority of operations in the United States. 
Under Secretary Moffitt, in your testimony you highlight the 
gap between the minority of large, wealthy farms and the 
majority of small, struggling farms. The farms in Connecticut's 
5th District represent this fact. You have been there, so you 
know what it looks like. Ninety-four percent of them are family 
farms, and 92 percent have less than $100,000 in sales value. 
For example, producers in my district may rely on fewer than 
two dozen dairy cows for their livelihood, and any diseases 
could do irreparable damage to their way of life.
    Under Secretary Moffitt, can you describe how the Animal 
and Plant Health Inspection Services disseminates information 
to the smallest and most vulnerable producers? And 
additionally, to what extent does your agency work directly 
with farmers to improve biosecurity and develop best practices?
    Ms. Moffitt. Congresswoman Hayes, thank you so much for 
that question. And working with and making sure that we are 
prioritizing farmers of all sizes, of all backgrounds who are 
working in different fields and different value-add is very 
important and is a priority. As you probably have heard in the 
Secretary's testimony as well, making sure that we are 
supporting the many and all of the farmers, so thank you for 
asking that question.
    As far as outreach and how are we reaching out through our 
different APHIS programs, we have a couple different programs, 
actually, several different programs but a couple that I will 
highlight, and Dr. Naugle can add some more as well. So we have 
things like the Defend the Flock Program, which is really about 
partnering and disseminating information about signs, symptoms 
of highly-pathogenic avian influenza, and then also our 
partnership with states as we work on stamping out the disease 
and making sure that producers have access to indemnity 
payments and that all producers know of the available resources 
that we have.
    On African swine fever, it is the same thing. We have a 
Protect Our Pigs Campaign. These campaigns are very much in 
partnership with industry, with states, with Cooperative 
Extension, who I know are such important tools and partners for 
particularly small producers but producers of all sizes. So 
these are very important as we get information out and 
disseminated and so that everyone, even backyard farmers to 
small farmers to larger farmers, have access to this really 
critical, important information.
    Dr. Naugle?
    Dr. Naugle. And I would just echo some of Under Secretary 
Moffitt's comments. We have a nationally distributed workforce 
in APHIS veterinary services, and you will often see our 
employees at local meetings with livestock producers, on the 
farm with producers, small families, whether they are helping 
them to work through a regulatory problem, just doing a check-
in and providing education, that is key.
    I would also add that, again, the work through NADPRP, the 
National Animal Disease Preparedness and Response Program, many 
of the projects that we have funded have worked and focused on 
outreach with some of the particular producer groups that you 
described, right, because we recognize that we need to reach 
out to those producers maybe in a different way than some of 
our big national communication programs like Defend the Flock 
or Protect Our Pigs.
    Mrs. Hayes. Thank you. I think we have to be intentional 
about making sure this information reaches the smallest of 
farmers so that our work can really be done well.
    You also mentioned, Under Secretary, the need for public-
sector animal health professionals and veterinarians. 
Connecticut is home to 20 agricultural science and technology 
education programs such as the one at Shepaug Valley School in 
Washington, Connecticut. Give me 2 minutes and I am going to 
get to education somehow. These programs provide high school 
students with diverse science case working career exposure in 
agricultural management, mechanics, biotechnology, animal 
science, and more.
    Under Secretary Moffitt, very quickly, can education 
programs targeted at high schoolers help alleviate workforce 
shortages in the animal health sector? And are you aware of any 
strategies that APHIS and USDA will use to support agricultural 
science and technology education programs?
    Ms. Moffitt. Thank you so much for that question, and 
absolutely, those programs that you described are such an 
important part of building our workforce, bringing in students 
in this talent pipeline I think is so important. At APHIS we 
have the AgDiscovery Program that is actively working with high 
schoolers, middle schoolers to build that pipeline and for 
youth who are interested in sciences, interested in agriculture 
to discover through this AgDiscovery Program different possible 
careers so that hopefully they come and want to work at USDA or 
in agriculture, writ large.
    Mrs. Hayes. Thank you. I will just close by saying I am so 
incredibly proud of Shepaug Valley High School and their 
agriscience program in my district, and I am going to put my 
neck out there and extend an invitation to you to visit at any 
time.
    My time has expired. I feel bad, but I do apologize in 
advance. I have to go to another hearing. Thank you for your 
time today.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Next, I now recognize the 
gentleman from Wisconsin for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Van Orden. Thank you very much for coming. I just have 
a few questions for you, Madam Under Secretary.
    I am particularly concerned about diseases being introduced 
to our herds and flocks around the country. It has a 
devastating economic impact on agriculture. One of the things I 
would like to ask about is African swine flu. Are we importing 
hogs from Africa?
    Ms. Moffitt. I can have Dr. Naugle talk a little bit more 
about some of the interlocking and the things that we are doing 
to make sure that we keep African swine fever out of the 
country. African swine fever is unfortunately in many countries 
and particularly close to us is in the Dominican Republic and 
Haiti as well.
    Mr. Van Orden. In Puerto Rico, right.
    Ms. Moffitt. I will pass it to Dr. Naugle to talk about the 
different things, but important is the import controls that we 
have that Dr. Naugle can talk about.
    Mr. Van Orden. Right. So I am just going to cut you off 
here. I know the answer. I am asking this. Are we importing 
pork into this country from anywhere? That is just an example 
because the African swine fever--are we importing pork into the 
United States?
    Ms. Moffitt. Yes, we import pork and pork products into the 
United States.
    Mr. Van Orden. Okay. Are we importing poultry into the 
United States?
    Ms. Moffitt. Yes.
    Mr. Van Orden. Okay.
    Ms. Moffitt. We import poultry and poultry products into 
the United States.
    Mr. Van Orden. All right. So I understand this. So can you 
maybe explain to me why we are importing pork into the United 
States and poultry into the United States when the American 
farmer is capable of producing these in nearly unlimited 
capacity if they have the appropriate types of regulatory 
controls established by the Government?
    Ms. Moffitt. Yes, so international trade that we enjoy goes 
two-ways, and so there are some types of product that are 
important that we can import here for consumer preferences.
    Mr. Van Orden. Yes.
    Ms. Moffitt. But what is very important, as we are 
importing and as we have protocols in place for importing 
product is that we are making sure that the product that is 
coming in is free from disease and not introducing a foreign 
animal disease or a food safety risk to any of our industry and 
people in the country.
    Mr. Van Orden. I understand. So I am asking you, do you 
think that potentially some of the policies that have been put 
in place are restricting our ability to produce pork and 
poultry here, including exporting them? Because I am having a 
really hard time understanding why we are importing--pretty 
soon, we are going to be a net importer for agriculture, and 
from my perspective, a lot of that is due to some very 
restrictive policies that I would like to see us open them up a 
little bit so we could produce pork and poultry and serve it 
around the world as opposed to potentially importing these 
animals into the country that introduce these horrible diseases 
into our flocks and our herds?
    Ms. Moffitt. Yes, I think what is really important is that 
we are working and actively working on supporting and 
protecting our own industry so our own industry can continue to 
grow and thrive to produce food for our domestic consumers, as 
well as abroad.
    Mr. Van Orden. Yes.
    Ms. Moffitt. And I would like Dr. Naugle to talk about just 
some of the things that we have in place so that when product 
is becoming imported, that we aren't introducing or we are 
reducing the risk of introducing any foreign animal diseases.
    Mr. Van Orden. Please do, Doctor.
    Dr. Naugle. Yes, thank you. My pleasure. So within APHIS, 
we have a group that just focuses on regionalization services, 
and so whenever a country requests to import any kind of animal 
or animal product into the United States, we begin an extensive 
and a quite long process of evaluating their veterinary 
infrastructure, the disease status of various different 
diseases in their country, as well as what mitigations they 
have in place to prevent future outbreaks or respond should 
those outbreaks occur. After that process occurs, we do 
multiple site visits. We do formal risk assessments, all of 
that prior to publishing a proposed rule that would allow for 
public comment for people to let us know what they think about 
whether we would recognize certain countries to allow for trade 
or not.
    Mr. Van Orden. Great. Thank you, Doctor. I am sorry, but my 
time is going to expire here real quick.
    Dr. Naugle. I understand.
    Mr. Van Orden. Madam Under Secretary, I would like to put 
on your marketing hat real quick. We go to the store, we can 
buy skim milk, we can buy one percent milk, and we can buy two 
percent milk. Do you know what the fat content of whole milk 
is?
    Ms. Moffitt. I don't. I want to say it is somewhere around 
six percent.
    Mr. Van Orden. It is not. It is 3\1/2\ percent. That is the 
problem.
    Ms. Moffitt. Three and a half.
    Mr. Van Orden. So people think they get skim milk, one 
percent, two percent, and they think they are drinking butter 
when they have whole milk. So I am going to ask you, I would 
like to get with your staff, we have to be able to change this 
because we are prohibited from marketing whole milk as 3\1/2\ 
percent milk, so people think they are getting six percent or 
ten percent or 15 percent, and they believe that it is 
unhealthy when in fact it is the most healthy form of milk. So 
I am going to ask you to commit to getting with me and my staff 
to see if we can--you put your marketing hat on and we can get 
this changed so that the American consumer understands exactly 
what they are consuming.
    Ms. Moffitt. I will absolutely be happy to have our staff 
and your staff connect.
    Mr. Van Orden. Well, thank you, Madam Under Secretary and 
Doctor. I appreciate it. With that, I yield back.
    The Chairman. I now recognize the gentlewoman from Colorado 
for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Caraveo. Thank you, Chairman Mann, and to Ranking 
Member Costa, and thank you for hosting the hearing this 
morning.
    Under Secretary Moffitt and Dr. Naugle, thank you for 
taking the time to be here to provide your testimony. These 
issues are all very important to me. One of the counties that I 
represent is Weld County, Colorado, which is a leading producer 
of beef, cattle, and dairy, and I am glad that animal health is 
the focus of our first Subcommittee hearing. I do want to 
reiterate the comments that Chairman Mann said about the ear 
tag program and trying to make that cost as small to the 
producers. I know that that is something that has been brought 
up on my ag listening tours.
    But speaking about diseases and wildlife and feral animals, 
they increasingly pose risks to humans and agricultural health 
and our economy, as evidenced by the recent outbreaks that have 
been spoken about with highly-pathogenic avian influenza in the 
U.S. and African swine fever in the Caribbean. Generally, what 
is the USDA currently doing to assess disease spillover from 
wildlife, enhance wildlife disease surveillance, and develop 
cost-effective mitigation efforts that can be deployed at scale 
in the event of an outbreak?
    Ms. Moffitt. Thank you so much for that question. And I 
will pass it on to Dr. Naugle to answer more fully, but I just 
want to highlight, of course, as you well know from Colorado, 
the National Wildlife Research Center in Fort Collins, 
Colorado, and the importance of that program is a key part of 
our wildlife research program. That program is doing important 
surveillance on 31 different diseases in wildlife. And the work 
on monitoring wild birds particularly was a key early indicator 
for us in our highly-pathogenic avian influenza response.
    So I will pass it to Dr. Naugle for further answer.
    Dr. Naugle. Great. Thanks for this question. This is an 
area that I think all of us in animal agriculture really 
understand the risk at that wildlife-livestock interface. And I 
think if you look at historically some of the diseases that we 
have had control programs for in the United States like 
tuberculosis, brucellosis, we know that both of those have a 
wildlife component in them, right?
    So to specifically answer your question, with many of our 
disease programs, we do conduct surveillance in different 
wildlife species surrounding herds that might be infected with 
diseases that we know can affect wildlife like TB. We know we 
have the greater Yellowstone area with brucellosis, and we work 
very hard to implement mitigations there so we don't get 
brucellosis in cattle in the greater Yellowstone area. 
Additionally, the feral swine program that we talked about 
earlier, surveillance is conducted on those swine to help us 
look at things like swine brucellosis, pseudo-rabies, as well 
as monitor for the potential for ASF or CSF. So we really look 
at our disease control comprehensively and consider both 
wildlife and livestock.
    Ms. Caraveo. Are there resources needed to replace the 
existing funds that came from the American Rescue Plan Act of 
2021 (Pub. L. 117-2) that were dedicated to addressing some of 
these concerns and efforts?
    Ms. Moffitt. Thank you for highlighting the funding that 
was received through the American Rescue Plan. We are working 
actively on implementing that funding. At this point, the 
funding has been able to identify different research projects 
and implementation for the interface of COVID-19 and animals 
and between animals and then also between animals and human 
health. So that funding has been important, and we have 
additional funds through that that we are working on developing 
and ensuring that funding is put to good use as well.
    Ms. Caraveo. Perfect. Thank you both so much, and I yield 
back my time.
    The Chairman. The chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Tennessee for 5 minutes.
    Mr. DesJarlais. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I think you both have been working around this question 
that I am going to ask you just now, but just for further 
clarifications, I will ask it maybe a little different way. 
What steps is the USDA taking to work with outside stakeholders 
such as State Departments of Ag, animal health officials, 
wildlife experts, to inform the public, especially those with 
backyard flocks, about biosecurity and resources on what 
symptoms to look for to help mitigate the spread of avian 
influenza?
    Ms. Moffitt. Yes, there are a lot of resources that APHIS 
has been putting into play, and Dr. Naugle can talk about some 
of them specifically. I mentioned the defend the flock program. 
That is an important one. The partnerships you identified with 
states, with industry, with cooperative extension, with other 
nonprofits and Tribal organizations. All of those different 
layers of partnerships are very important so that we are 
reaching different constituents who are getting information 
from different information sources.
    But I will pass it to Dr. Naugle.
    Dr. Naugle. Yes, thank you. It is really a whole-of-
industry response with regard to outreach and education, right? 
In addition to some of the things previously mentioned, we do 
provide cooperative agreement funding directly to states that 
are impacted by HPAI to assist with their response, as well as 
education and outreach with those local producers.
    Mr. DesJarlais. Okay.
    Ms. Moffitt. I will just add on, my daughter, until we 
moved to D.C., was a 4-H member, and we would get information 
through the 4-H network, so there are lots of different avenues 
and wonderful avenues to get that information.
    Mr. DesJarlais. Okay. Thank you. Under Secretary, is there 
an end in sight to the current high-path outbreak? And if the 
disease is here to stay, how does that alter APHIS' approach to 
dealing with the disease moving forward?
    Ms. Moffitt. Thank you so much for that question, 
Representative. That is an important question, one that I don't 
have an answer to. I wish I had a crystal ball to really know. 
But I think what is very important--and I will pass it to Dr. 
Naugle to talk about this because she so clearly identified it 
last week in a meeting that we had with industry--is as we are 
working--just like we took lessons learned from the 2015 
outbreak, we are already incorporating lessons learned in this 
2022-2023 outbreak, and that includes things like looking at 
and evaluating biosecurity and what more can we do on 
biosecurity because we know that is the one most effective 
things in reducing lateral spread, but also how we are looking 
at and reducing the attractiveness of wild birds because we 
know the virus load is very strong in the wild bird population, 
and we want to reduce the introduction from wild birds.
    Dr. Naugle. Thank you. Additionally, I will add that we 
also really are working at the farm level to help do 
biosecurity assessments so producers can go through their 
facilities and identify if there is opportunity for wild birds 
to get in there and potentially infect their flocks. So I think 
that is a really important step for us.
    I think you are leading toward the vaccination question, 
and so to that regard, we are currently behind the scenes 
having conversations with international trading partners. Dr. 
Sifford goes to the World Organisation for Animal Health in 
May, and HPAI will be a major topic at that meeting, and she 
will discuss with her counterparts across the world if we need 
to look at vaccination differently. Right now, our partners at 
Agricultural Research Service are investigating different 
strains of potential vaccine for possible licensure, and 
internally, we are determining plans for how we might implement 
a vaccine strategy.
    However, right now, today, we believe strongly that our 
response has been effective. Whenever we have identified HPAI 
in a case in domestic poultry, we have effectively stamped it 
out. And due to the trade consequences of vaccine at this 
point, we are planning for the future but continuing on the 
current path. Thank you.
    Mr. DesJarlais. Okay. And by reading my mind and answering 
my last question, I can yield back 47 seconds.
    The Chairman. Thank you. I now recognize the gentlewoman 
from Maine for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Pingree. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank 
you for holding this hearing. Nice to see you, Under Secretary. 
Thank you for being with us. And thank you, Dr. Naugle, for 
participating as well.
    I am going to take a slightly different turn and talk about 
aquaculture. Maine aquaculture is about an $85-$100 million a 
year business, represents about 25 different species of 
finfish, shellfish, sea vegetables, and is about 700 jobs in 
our state. So aquatic animal health is very important to us.
    APHIS has a National Aquaculture Health Plan and Standards, 
which was released in 2021, which supports aquatic livestock 
health. Could you give me a little bit of an update about the 
work you are doing to protect aquatic animal health, and what 
should we be doing in the farm bill to future your efforts?
    Ms. Moffitt. Thank you, Representative Pingree, for that 
question. I am going to pass it to Dr. Naugle to talk about it 
but just wanted to highlight that the standards are out there. 
We are working with industry and states on implementing it. And 
Dr. Naugle can talk more about that.
    Dr. Naugle. Yes, thank you. The aquaculture industry is 
really an exciting industry, right? It is really growing, and 
we are really happy to be supporting producers at the 
forefront.
    First, we did receive additional funding in the omnibus for 
Fiscal Year 2023, and we are using that to further develop we 
are calling the CAHPS, which is the Comprehensive Aquaculture 
Health Program Standards, and what that allows us to do is it 
develops an approach where aquaculture producers address things 
like biosecurity, surveillance, other types of management 
practices that support aquatic health and allow them to be 
competitive both interstate trade, as well as potentially 
international trade. We are very excited about that.
    With that money, we also plan to provide about $1 million 
in cooperative agreements with laboratories to help us further 
with the laboratory capacity with regard to aquatic diseases, 
which is something we haven't really focused on much in the 
past.
    And then finally, we continue to do risk assessments and 
pathway assessments to look at certain high-consequence 
diseases of aquatic species to determine if any additional 
actions need to be taken with regard to movement of animals.
    Ms. Pingree. Great. Well, thank you for that work, and I am 
glad to see you are putting the new funding to work, and we 
will look forward to working with you on that.
    Back to the avian influenza, which I know is on everyone's 
mind, I mean, even though we were once a huge poultry-producing 
state, we are now much more like of a small-, medium-size, 
backyard flocks. And unfortunately, in a backyard flock you 
have more opportunities for making that connection with 
wildlife. And I know you have been talking quite a bit about 
that. Well, birds of course, but also in Maine we had avian 
influenza detected in our harbor seals, and so because we have 
a lot of saltwater farming, a lot of coastal farming, that is 
something we are concerned about, too.
    So can you just talk a little bit about the interfacing you 
are doing with backyard flocks? And I know you have talked a 
little bit about how you try to control it in wildlife, but 
just some of those issues, how you are educating farmers about 
how to watch for it to make sure we are not spreading it. I 
know we have had some outbreaks in Maine with backyard flocks.
    Ms. Moffitt. Yes, certainly, how to watch for it and the 
education and the work that we are doing with farmers, backyard 
farmers, with household farmers, with industry at large I think 
it is such an important part. Actually--and I just learned last 
week--the first case that we found that was detected in Indiana 
was because of education campaigns that APHIS had done on how 
to understand and detect symptoms that birds might be 
exhibiting when having high-path avian influenza.
    So it just shows the success of the program, and I think 
that that is important, and making sure, as I mentioned before, 
that we are working with multiple different partners who are 
reaching different audiences I think is a very important part. 
I know the information that I used to get on my farm is 
different even from the information that a neighboring farmer 
would get, and so that is an important part.
    Identifying and then also knowing what to do when you do 
identify that there are symptoms, calling a local vet, calling 
cooperative extension, calling the state animal health 
official, and how to be able to respond to that. And then of 
course also bringing in the state officials who might also 
invite APHIS to join as well, I think all of those interlocking 
efforts are very important.
    Dr. Naugle, anything additional?
    Ms. Pingree. Great. Well, I yield back, but thank you very 
much for being with us today and the work you are doing.
    Ms. Moffitt. Thank you, Representative.
    The Chairman. I now recognize the gentleman from Nebraska 
for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Bacon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Under 
Secretary Moffitt and Dr. Naugle, for being here.
    One of the things I am very proud of in the last farm bill, 
we were able to put in the foot-and-mouth disease vaccine bank. 
If you already talked about this, I apologize. I have multiple 
hearings going on simultaneously right now. Could you give us 
the status of the foot-and-mouth disease vaccine bank? Is it 
fully operational in your mind, or what else do we need to be 
doing?
    Ms. Moffitt. I will kick it off, and Dr. Naugle can talk 
more fully about this. The foot-and-mouth vaccine bank, thanks 
to the 2018 Farm Bill, we have been able to invest $52 million 
in the vaccine bank as a whole, and that has been very 
important. And Dr. Naugle can talk about some of the practices 
that we have employed so that we make sure that we have--as we 
talk about the vaccine bank, it is an important insurance 
policy. First and foremost is biosecurity, and our work, 
together with industry in stamping out the disease, but to have 
that vaccine bank as an insurance policy is such an important 
part.
    Dr. Naugle?
    Dr. Naugle. Yes, thanks. I will share some additional 
detail there. So right now, within the National Animal Vaccine 
and Veterinary Countermeasures Bank, we have access to vaccine 
antigen concentrate for foot-and-mouth disease. We have access 
to finished vaccine for classical swine fever, and we also 
recently purchased diagnostic test kits for both FMD and ASF, 
right? So the countermeasures in the vaccine bank is more than 
just FMD, right?
    Mr. Bacon. Okay.
    Dr. Naugle. It is much more comprehensive.
    As far as the number of doses that we have in the bank, our 
goal is to be able to have somewhere between ten to 25 million 
doses per each strain of FMD that we bank, and we have, I 
believe, ten strains that we are currently banking antigen 
against. That goal of 25 million doses per year is a minimum 
goal, right? It wouldn't necessarily cover everything in the 
event of an FMD outbreak, but it would allow us to use the 
vaccine initially should it be needed.
    The last thing I will say is the determination of what 
vaccines we use, the strains that we bank against are made by a 
subject matter expert panel that kind of help us decide based 
on the epidemiology and the geography of those diseases which 
are the highest risk.
    Mr. Bacon. So would you consider yourselves fully 
operational with the vaccine bank, or is there more work to do 
to get----
    Dr. Naugle. There is always more work to do, sir, always 
more work to do.
    Mr. Bacon. Okay. So there is always more work to do, but 
would you consider yourself fully operational at this point?
    Dr. Naugle. Yes. If we needed to deploy vaccine tomorrow, 
we would----
    Mr. Bacon. Okay. Not----
    Dr. Naugle.--have access to FMD and CSF vaccine tomorrow.
    Mr. Bacon. The reason I ask that question, a couple years 
ago they said, well, we are minimally operational. We have more 
work to do, so I think we are probably at a--now you are just 
at a sustainment----
    Dr. Naugle. Oh, for sure.
    Mr. Bacon. Yes, you are at sustainment level.
    Dr. Naugle. Absolutely. Yes.
    Mr. Bacon. Okay.
    Dr. Naugle. I am sorry. I misunderstood that.
    Mr. Bacon. That is all right. Well, I probably didn't ask 
the question quite right either.
    Well, first of all, I want to thank the Nebraska cattlemen 
and also the Nebraska pork industry because they came to me 
back in 2017, said this was a top priority, and we were able to 
work hard--initially, I was told it was too early, and that we 
needed more research to get there, but I am so proud that we 
have been able to achieve this huge milestone.
    Secretary Vilsack said you are making pretty good progress 
on the African swine fever vaccine. Can you just give our 
citizens some update where we are at?
    Ms. Moffitt. Yes, I had the opportunity to travel to 
Vietnam where ARS, in partnership with the Vietnamese 
Government, is working on field trials as we speak on African 
swine fever vaccine trials for a handful of different vaccine 
strains, and I think that is making very good progress. Just 
like with the high-path avian influenza vaccine that Dr. Naugle 
talked about, as we look toward and work on what that looks 
like and once it gets developed and we have a plan in place on 
how it would be able to be implemented, there are many other 
factors that we would be considering. And Dr. Naugle can expand 
on this more, but certainly the human factors, animal health 
factors, what is the efficacy of the vaccine, and how would we 
maintain and look at and evaluate trade in all of those as well 
as we distribute.
    Mr. Bacon. When you see what it did to the Chinese pork 
industry, it just devastated it, so I am glad we are ahead of 
the game here on some preventative measures and some 
reactionary measures if it happens.
    One last question, is your level of research dollars or 
appropriations adequate to do what you need to do?
    Ms. Moffitt. That is a very good question, Representative, 
and I think, across the board we do what we can with the 
research funds that we have, and I know Dr. Jacobs-Young has 
been before the Senate to talk about the level of research 
dollars we have and the advancement that we are doing in 
research. I think what is really important is the partnership 
that we have with industry, the partnership that we have with 
the universities and land-grant universities to be able to 
maximize the dollars that we have. But, as always, in 
everything that we do, we can always do more with more funding.
    Mr. Bacon. With that, I yield back. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you. The chair recognizes the gentleman 
from North Carolina, Congressman Davis, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Davis of North Carolina. Thanks so much, Mr. Chairman. 
Good morning, and thank you so much for being here to ensure 
our producers have consistent, predictable USDA guidelines on 
animal disease and prevention.
    The hog and poultry industries are powerful economic 
drivers in agriculture, particularly in eastern North Carolina. 
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service just announced 
more than $15 million for 60 projects, including one at North 
Carolina State University, designed to extend a between-farm 
African swine fever transmission model to estimate the 
necessary number of sample collectors in the highly swine-dense 
region.
    My question, Under Secretary, can you give me a timeline 
based on previously awarded funding for the rollout of the 
National Animal Disease Preparedness and Response Program 
grants?
    Ms. Moffitt. Thank you for that question, and thank you, 
Congressman Davis, for highlighting one of the projects that 
just recently received funding. It is exciting as I look at the 
funding that we do have and that we are able to invest in 
projects, just the breadth and diversity of the projects that 
are funded, how those projects--the determination of projects 
is funded through. Similar to the vaccine bank, we bring in a 
group of experts to really identify the top priority in funding 
for each year. That money is distributed each year, so when you 
ask about the timing--and I can pass to Dr. Naugle about 
specifics for this recent round of funding--but we do announce 
the funding every year so that there is an annual cycle of new 
funding available.
    And as far as the existing projects and what they are 
looking like, Dr. Naugle?
    Dr. Naugle. Yes. So, correct. Every year, we provide 
funding for these projects on both the NADPRP side, which you 
talked about, as well as the NAHLN side, right, which goes to 
the different laboratories. The prior announcement that we just 
did was probably the largest that we have had. It was for the 
$15.8 million for the 60 projects. And that is because we know 
that the last year we went to a steady state of $18 million for 
the NADPRP program.
    So beyond that, I would say that these agreements tend to 
be for a year, renewable up to a second year, so the projects 
that were initiated very early on in the course of the farm 
bill funding are in the final stages of being completed at this 
time.
    Mr. Davis of North Carolina. Okay. Thank you so much. 
Eastern North Carolina has a very robust agricultural workforce 
and a large presence of poultry producers. And I have heard 
from several in the industry and labor leaders. Given the 
recent outbreak of the highly-pathogenic avian influenza, how 
do you assess product safety and workplace safety, which go 
hand-in-hand at large poultry processing facilities?
    Ms. Moffitt. Thank you, Representative Davis, for that 
question. And Dr. Naugle can talk specifically about some of 
the safety procedures. I will just say that we take safety very 
seriously. We want to make sure that as the team is coming in 
and working in these poultry houses or different facilities 
that have contagious diseases, that we are making sure that we 
are protecting everyone, our workforce, as well as all of the 
workforce that is there.
    We are also making sure that we have a rapid response 
corps, that it has the flex capacities so that we are not 
overextending our workforce as well, and we had a rapid 
response team to be able to handle that.
    Dr. Naugle?
    Dr. Naugle. Yes, I would just add from the worker safety 
perspective in the event of a response, anyone who is working 
on that response wears the appropriate personal protective 
equipment. We also have a safety officer onsite at all 
responses to ensure worker safety. We also collaborate with 
local state departments and the CDC to ensure post-response 
monitoring for signs of flu.
    Mr. Davis of North Carolina. Okay. Thank you for the 
response.
    Over the past several years, Congress has shown tremendous 
support for the Agriculture Quarantine Inspection Program, most 
recently with the reintroduction of the Beagle Brigade Act 
(H.R. 1480/S. 759). How important is this program for keeping 
foreign animal and plant diseases and pests out of the United 
States? And how does your agency work with Customs and Border 
Protection to ensure its success?
    Ms. Moffitt. Thank you, Representative Davis, for that 
question. And that is such an important part. It is really an 
important factor in keeping foreign animal diseases out of the 
country is APHIS' partnership with CBP that you identified. The 
AQI funding is the funding source for that partnership. It 
allows us to be able to fund our partners at CBP. Any of us who 
have come into the country from foreign travel have been 
interviewed and asked whether we are bringing in animal 
products, and that is a really important piece of our defense 
mechanism to prevent foreign animal diseases from coming in.
    We also, through that funding, are funding things like the 
detector dog teams that are used at many airports and also 
parcel facilities so that product that is coming in via person 
or also parcel is inspected. These are all funded through the 
AQI fees.
    And we want to just recognize Congress for being able to 
supplement the AQI fees. AQI fees, for those who might not be 
familiar, receive various funding sources, but part of it is 
through international air travel. And when international air 
travel mostly screeched to a halt at the beginning of the 
pandemic, the funding source also dropped significantly. But 
thanks to supplemental funding from Congress, we have received 
close to $1 billion in additional funds to continue to make 
sure that we have our safeguards in place at all of our points 
of entry so that we don't introduce foreign animal diseases 
into the country.
    Mr. Davis of North Carolina. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I 
would yield back.
    The Chairman. And I recognize the gentleman from Iowa, 
Congressman Feenstra, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Feenstra. Thank you, Chairman Mann, for holding this 
hearing. You look good in that chairmanship. Thank you for 
doing this.
    I also want to thank Under Secretary Moffitt and Dr. Naugle 
for being here.
    In Iowa, obviously, the avian influenza outbreak has been 
very extreme. I think \1/4\ of the birds that were depopulated 
came from Iowa. Fifty-eight million birds were affected in 47 
states, and we had 16 million turkeys, chickens, and birds 
destroyed in Iowa, so this is significant.
    I have lived through it. I have lived through the 2015 
outbreak and since. I have seen a lot of changes, which is 
great, working with APHIS and then also our Secretary of Ag 
Mike Naig in Iowa, the depopulation time has decreased from 
15.5 days in 2015 to about 4 days in 2022, so this is very, 
very significant.
    Either one of you, or Under Secretary, is there anything 
the agency can do to start looking at minimizing the risk, or 
can we look at predictive modeling, anything that can help our 
producers to try to minimize this from happening each year, and 
again, trying to curb the effects?
    Ms. Moffitt. Thank you for that question. And, I want to 
just acknowledge just the deep impact that highly-pathogenic 
avian influenza has had on producers, has had on consumers as 
well. We in this hearing really talk about and highlight the 
success that we have seen from the farm bill programs. They are 
working in our current outbreak, as you talked about, a big 
difference from 2015. And that has been great in many ways, but 
it certainly has deeply impacted the producers.
    You asked about what additional measures that we are taking 
and predictive tools, and there are a lot of different things 
that we are doing. First off, I want to highlight biosecurity. 
We have worked with producers, and industry has also worked 
with producers on developing more robust biosecurity plans and 
training for those biosecurity plans so that they are 
implemented by producers. We have seen a reduction in lateral 
spread, which is spread between house-to-house from 70 percent 
in the 2015 outbreak to around 15, 16 percent in this current 
outbreak, so a big, significant reduction there.
    We have more to do. We know, as you mentioned, the virus is 
prevalent in the wild bird population, so how do we reduce the 
attractiveness of the farms from wild bird populations is 
another avenue that we are working at. Predictive modeling and 
our partners at Wildlife Services and our partners with fish 
and wildlife agencies across the country at states is a very 
important part of what we are doing as well. We talked about 
the lab network through NAHLN.
    Mr. Feenstra. Yes.
    Ms. Moffitt. We have tested over two million birds so that 
we understand and know where the birds are traveling so our 
industry can be prepared.
    Mr. Feenstra. Yes, awesome. When you talk about NAHLN, 
obviously, that is born out of Iowa, too. Iowa State University 
is home to the world-renowned vet diagnostic lab and they are 
doing a lot. I am concerned. Is there anything that we can do 
to help undertake the current workload and be more prepared 
from the lab and NAHLN, anything that we can do in the farm 
bill that you look at and say, hey, this might be a good idea?
    Ms. Moffitt. For the lab networks, the variety of funding 
sources that the NAHLN network receives is very important, 
certainly through state funding, through land-grant funding, 
through appropriations, as well as farm bill, and that I think 
the variety of funding sources, I believe, has been very 
important for those lab networks.
    Dr. Naugle, is there anything additional?
    Dr. Naugle. I would just add that, earlier today, we talked 
about some of the gaps in the veterinary workforce----
    Mr. Feenstra. Yes.
    Dr. Naugle.--and I think when you talk about the workforce 
of the laboratory, it is an even more specialized group of 
people, right, because they have these additional----
    Mr. Feenstra. Yes.
    Dr. Naugle.--skills and capabilities, so I think workforce 
development for laboratories is critical.
    Mr. Feenstra. Awesome. So I am just going to pivot here, 
and it has the same theme. African swine fever. The 
depopulation of birds is one thing. When you have to euthanize 
hogs is another thing. And we saw this with COVID when we had 
to do it with COVID. Are you really taking serious measures of 
what this is going to look like when you have to depopulate 
large animals and where are they going to go? And I know China 
is having this issue, right? I mean, you can't really just bury 
them because the disease stays. I mean, have these things been 
thought through?
    Ms. Moffitt. Representative Feenstra, thank you for the 
really important question. As we have been, we have been 
absolutely preparing for the, I hope, unlikely event of African 
swine fever in the country. With that said, we know that we 
need to be ready, and we have been investing through funding 
through NADPRP, as well as through the CCC funding that the 
Secretary has authorized for African swine fever, different 
mechanisms and rapid response so that we understand how to do 
disposal.
    Dr. Naugle, perhaps you can talk a little bit--oh, we are 
out of time.
    Mr. Feenstra. Yes. Yes. Thank you. I would like a response 
to that in writing at some point, okay? Thank you. I yield 
back.
    [The information referred to is located on p. 41.]
    The Chairman. Thank you. I now recognize the gentlewoman 
from Virginia, Congresswoman Spanberger, for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Spanberger. Thank you so very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you, under Secretary Moffitt, for joining us today. 
Dr. Naugle, thank you for being here as well. It is great to 
see you both here, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak to 
the importance of animal health in American agriculture.
    While livestock producers have certainly long known the 
threat that animal disease poses to our food supply, more 
Americans in recent times have really come to understand this 
reality as we have seen the price of eggs continue to go up in 
part due to the avian flu. As a mother of three children, I 
certainly know how important this nutritious food staple can be 
to families. Egg burritos are a fan favorite in my home.
    And importantly, I have heard from Virginia poultry 
producers that APHIS has been helpful as a partner in 
responding to outbreaks in the Commonwealth, so I do want to 
thank you for that work. But can you please share what USDA is 
doing to help poultry producers impacted by the avian flu 
beyond indemnity payments really to ensure the producers don't 
go out of business after an outbreak? And I know that you have 
touched on this periodically throughout your testimony today, 
but I am really concerned about the long-term effects on our 
nation's egg supply and the increase and impact on families and 
of course the producers I represent.
    Ms. Moffitt. Thank you, Representative Spanberger, for that 
question. And certainly as recognized with Representative 
Feenstra as well, the impact of what this has done for 
producers, particularly small producers. You mentioned 
indemnity. That is a very important part of the resources and 
the tools that have come from the Commodity Credit Corporation 
so that producers are able to capture some of the loss.
    Looking further at markets and expanding and broadening 
more and new and better markets that we often are working on at 
the Department as well, we are looking at how do we advance 
more local and regional markets, how do we advance more 
processing capacity, more processing capacity, writ large?
    Ms. Spanberger. Okay.
    Ms. Moffitt. I know we are also looking at, and Farm 
Service Agency is evaluating, what programs that they have to 
support users who have been hit in this distressed time as 
well.
    Ms. Spanberger. Thank you. I am glad you are thinking about 
it across the board as, of course, I knew you would be, but I 
look forward to any updates into the future.
    Switching from poultry to cattle, I have recently heard 
from Virginia cattle producers that they are seeing a rise in 
theileriosis cases within their herds, which I know you know 
has a very high mortality rate. Unfortunately, the only way to 
prevent this disease is through tick control, which can be very 
costly. I have also recently learned that ELAP, the Emergency 
Assistance for Livestock, which provides financial assistance 
to eligible livestock producers for losses due to this disease, 
does not cover losses due to theileriosis. Can you discuss why 
that is and what options exist for livestock producers to help 
with the cost of tick mitigation and losses associated with 
this disease?
    Ms. Moffitt. Thank you for that question, Representative 
Spanberger. We can look into and I can connect with FSA on ELAP 
and what is and isn't allowed to be funded, but I pass it to 
Dr. Naugle on more things that we are doing.
    Ms. Spanberger. Thank you.
    Dr. Naugle. Yes. So APHIS has been kind of on the forefront 
since the Asian longhorn tick, which is the carrier for 
theileriosis in the Virginia area since it was first detected 
several years ago. We work with a number of partners, including 
the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, on educational 
outreach. And while we don't have a vaccine, we do have 
treatment available for that particular disease.
    Ms. Spanberger. Thank you very much. We recently hosted a 
farm summit in my district, and this was an area of significant 
concern and frankly heated discussion because so many of 
Virginia's cattle producers are deeply concerned about the 
impact. So I would love to get additional information. We will 
follow up in writing to request that because I do want to make 
sure that that is available to the producers across my 
district, so thank you very much.
    And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    The Chairman. Great. The chair now recognizes the gentleman 
from Missouri, Congressman Alford, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Alford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our 
witness for being here today.
    Under Secretary Moffitt, I want to talk about workforce a 
little bit more. I think it is so important. We all know the 
importance of having a great APHIS staff in place to help with 
our preparedness and response. It is my understanding that 13 
percent of the total USDA workforce right now is eligible for 
retirement. Is that correct to your understanding?
    Ms. Moffitt. I don't know the exact number, but certainly--
--
    Mr. Alford. All right. We have done a little research on 
this. Our top-notch staff has. In the next 4 years, another 13 
percent is going to be eligible for retirement. That is a big 
number. What are we doing to make sure that we have the workers 
in place to create safety?
    Ms. Moffitt. Thank you for that question. And I think that 
we are very focused on how do we build our workforce across the 
board at USDA and specifically at APHIS. As you have mentioned, 
our APHIS workforce I would say--I call them our unsung heroes. 
They are working behind the scenes on making sure our food 
supply chain is safe, making sure that we have a safe and 
secure food supply chain in there, so important. And a critical 
part, as I think Ranking Member Costa said, in our national 
food security. So making sure we have a workforce that is ready 
when we do have retirements and that we are constantly flowing 
in new employees is important.
    As far as our workforce for emergency response, we are 
developing a rapid response corps so that we can flex our 
workforce and handle response capability----
    Mr. Alford. How big will that be?
    Ms. Moffitt. What?
    Mr. Alford. How big will this corps be for rapid response?
    Ms. Moffitt. It is starting out right now with 12 
positions, so it is building up. It is just beginning. But at 
the same time, we also are working on emergency hiring 
authorities, so we have hired, through emergency hiring 
authorities, 65 additional staff this year, as well as 25 term-
limited positions.
    That said, getting to the core of your question, how do we 
look long-term, we have many programs that are available for 
high school students who are interested in getting involved in 
agriculture, becoming veterinarians, or other fields in 
agriculture, as well as for college students. And we have 
different things like an internship program. Dr. Naugle can 
talk a little bit more about some of the different programs 
that we have so that we build and keep the pipeline coming into 
APHIS and to USDA across the board.
    Mr. Alford. I would like to hear about that because I know 
this is a big concern all over America, workforce.
    Ms. Moffitt. Yes.
    Mr. Alford. How are you getting young people interested in 
this, really which is a national security issue?
    Dr. Naugle. Well, sir, I think that is it. That is the 
challenge that we all have, right, and we need to start young. 
We need to start with students that are in 4-H, FFA, perhaps 
targeting in areas where we know there are major livestock 
industries to get some of those students interested in animal 
health jobs. We do have numerous internships within APHIS for 
really all ages of students, whether high school, all the way 
up through college, and we do have the premier Saul T. Wilson 
Scholarship Program and internship that provides some funding 
for students to attend veterinary school, and upon completion, 
they return and work for us for a certain period of years. But 
I think it is really going to take effort from all of us. I 
don't think it is something that APHIS can do alone. And I 
think we really need to leverage groups like 4-H and FFA.
    Mr. Alford. Madam Under Secretary, what can we do in 
Congress to help you in this effort?
    Ms. Moffitt. Well, that is a very good question. I can take 
that back with our team to look more at what types of things 
that we could ask for from Congress for this and get back to 
you.
    [The information referred to is located on p. 42.]
    Mr. Alford. That would be great. We would love to hear 
that. We love to help out.
    As you know, BSE or mad cow disease exists in two forms, 
classical and atypical. Can you talk us through the big-picture 
differences in the forms of the disease and explain why we do 
not restrict imports based on atypical cases of BSE?
    Ms. Moffitt. Thank you for that question, Representative. I 
am going to pass it to Dr. Naugle who can get into the science 
on that.
    Dr. Naugle. Great. So I would really describe it, this is 
the difference. What we call classical BSE, it is a malforming 
of the proteins in the brain, right? And it is infectious. 
Atypical BSE is kind of like that malformation that occurs due 
to old age. When we typically see atypical BSE, even atypical 
scrapie in sheep, which are in the same family, it tends to be 
in older animals. And even the World Organisation for Animal 
Health has said atypical scrapie and atypical BSE are not 
transmissible. When we have gone back and done the 
investigation with those cattle or with those sheep that have 
atypical, we can't find any exposure. There was no known 
exposure to other infected animals so that is the difference.
    Mr. Alford. Thank you. I appreciate it. Thanks again for 
being here. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you. The chair now recognizes the 
gentleman from Indiana, Congressman Baird, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Baird. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I really appreciate 
this hearing, and I appreciate the witness being here. My 
background is in research and animal science and so on, and so 
I really appreciate having this discussion.
    Under Secretary Moffitt, as you know, gene editing has been 
a promising tool for meeting the sustainability, the animal 
health and food security demands facing our food supply, so I 
was pleased to see the USDA budget request acknowledge animal 
biotechnology as one of the Secretary's top priorities. So my 
question is can you or Dr. Naugle talk more about the potential 
for gene editing to advance animal health, as well as the 
potential role of USDA in regulating and approving products for 
animal biotechnology?
    Ms. Moffitt. Thank you for that question, Representative 
Baird. And certainly, as you described your background, this 
hearing is right up your alley for sure.
    Animal biotech, as you asked about, is an important tool 
just as we talk about our disease response mechanisms and the 
different tools that we must have in the tool chest. As we look 
forward, right, with climate change, with other things that 
animals might need to have to be able to adapt to a changing or 
hotter climate, animal biotech can be a tool that producers may 
want to be able to tap into. And so the ability to get this 
right and to advance a regulatory rulemaking process for animal 
biotech is absolutely an important part of that.
    At USDA, as you talked about, we have the resources. We are 
part of the conversation. We have an incredible talented staff 
pool that is working on biotech on the plant side. Of course, 
we have a significant number of veterinarians at the 
Department. We have, of course, our trade partners at Farm 
Services Agency. So we are looking at all of the different 
factors and really opening the aperture of what this looks like 
as we regulate gene-edited animals. What is really important is 
that there is a regulatory framework, that it supports 
innovation and safety, and that it provides certainty for 
developers because we want to make sure that developers, small, 
medium, and large, are able to participate in a regulatory 
framework, and that certainty is what we hear is a very 
important part of that.
    So at USDA we have a strong track record for developing or 
for regulating genetic engineering; and, certainly, we want to 
make sure that we have the best possible regulatory system at 
play.
    Mr. Baird. Thank you. And, Dr. Naugle, do you have any 
thoughts, anything to add? I really appreciate the focus on 
biotechnology. I want to say that again because I really feel 
that it is going to be important as we move to try to find 
plants and animals that can adapt to environmental change and 
is also a way of improving our volume on plants and animals, so 
I really appreciate the focus there.
    My next question then deals with the animal vaccine 
technologies. So, with the magnitude of challenges posed for 
these disease outbreaks and the critical need to safeguard our 
food supply, does USDA agree it should consider any and all 
options for veterinary countermeasures? Doctor?
    Ms. Moffitt. Thank you for that question, and for this one, 
I will certainly pass it on to Dr. Naugle.
    Dr. Naugle. Yes. So with regard to vaccines specifically as 
a countermeasure, we rely on APHIS' Center for Veterinary 
Biologics to evaluate any possible technology and determine 
that it is safe, pure, efficacious, and potent. And so we would 
consider new technologies as they are developed.
    Mr. Baird. Thank you very much. And we are getting close on 
time, so with that, Mr. Chairman, I am going to yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Congressman Baird.
    As we wrap here, just some closing remarks. From high-path 
avian influenza to African swine fever and from foot-and-mouth 
disease to biosecurity measures, this Subcommittee will 
continue to work to give animal health and livestock, dairy, 
and poultry issues the attention that they deserve. These 
issues, however, also deserve the attention of the House 
Appropriations Committee, and they deserve the attention not 
only of the USDA but also the Food and Drug Administration 
where proposed changes to long-standing labeling requirements 
for re-implanting of shorter acting growth implants for cattle 
could abruptly stop a common practice that would adversely 
impact the industry.
    The issues deserve our attention during the reauthorization 
of the farm bill and on the House floor. The livelihood of 
farmers, ranchers, and agricultural producers, and the 
consumers whom they often work for is at stake.
    Under Secretary Moffitt, thank you for participating in 
today's hearing.
    Oh, you popped in. So Congressman Molinaro, the Member from 
New York, is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Molinaro. I apologize, Chairman, but I do thank you. I 
just wanted to circle back to a couple I think somewhat 
specific New York questions, so I will get to that. Obviously, 
very timely. We know how dangerous an outbreak of disease can 
be. And of course, over the past year, avian influenza has 
decimated poultry farmers across the country. Now, 
specifically, though, considering just how destructive disease 
outbreaks can be for farmers and in fact the entire food 
system, it is essential obviously that USDA and Congress work 
together to ensure robust prevention.
    New York farmers very specifically are fortunate to benefit 
from Cornell University's Animal Health Diagnostic Center, 
which happens to be in my district in upstate New York. This is 
one of the most advanced diagnostic laboratories in the country 
and of course helps livestock farms of all sizes throughout my 
district manage the health of their herd and prevent the spread 
of disease.
    The Animal Health Diagnostic Center is part of the National 
Animal Health Laboratory Network, and so very specifically, 
Under Secretary, could you just speak to how the USDA is 
working to improve access to facilities like the Animal Health 
Diagnostic Center to prevent the spread of avian flu and other 
like diseases?
    Ms. Moffitt. Representative, thank you so much for that 
question. And the National Animal Health Laboratory Network is 
such an important part of our response mechanism so that we 
have quick diagnostic across the country, as you identified. We 
have labs in over 40 different states, 43 different states, and 
that network of labs is a critical part of it.
    You asked about the funding that we have. Thanks to the 
2018 Farm Bill, we were able to receive additional funding for 
the National Animal Health Lab Network, so additional $20 
million that have been able to supplement annual 
appropriations, as well as state funding and also land-grant 
funding that the labs receive. This funding is an important 
part. I have not been and visited the lab in Cornell but did 
get to visit the lab in Minnesota, and I saw firsthand what 
they were able to do with the NAHLN--that is the acronym--with 
the NAHLN funding that they received to be able to invest in 
equipment that could do rapid diagnostics so that when we do 
have an outbreak--and I was able to see this before we had 
high-path avian influenza to see how they were ready and the 
proper equipment and materials to be able to be ready should an 
outbreak occur so they can do mass diagnostic testing. The 
quicker we know that we have a disease, the quicker that we 
know we have a foreign animal disease, the better we can 
respond quickly.
    Mr. Molinaro. So I appreciate that. And I also want to 
extend certainly an invitation--Chairman Thompson was just with 
us in the 19th District, met with the folks at Cornell, 
certainly would love to have USDA staff and yourself visit the 
great work at Cornell.
    Could you though--and I apologize if you did cover it. So 
now in the development of the farm bill, I assume other than or 
inclusive of dollars, what could Congress be focused on to 
expand obviously access and that support?
    Ms. Moffitt. Well, and Dr. Naugle can go into this more if 
you are specifically talking about the lab or----
    Mr. Molinaro. Yes.
    Ms. Moffitt. I think the funding of course is very 
important. We hear that from the labs themselves. The 
flexibility that the funding allows for them to be able to 
identify what needs they have and for us to be able to fund 
those I think is important as well.
    Dr. Naugle----
    Mr. Molinaro. That would be great. Thank you.
    Dr. Naugle. Yes. And I will say I had the pleasure of being 
at the Cornell Lab last summer, so I had a very recent tour. It 
was beautiful. The one thing that I would add--and we have 
talked about it in a prior question--is workforce development 
for our laboratories as well.
    Mr. Molinaro. And what--and I apologize, what do you 
recommend as a pipeline beyond funding to expand at least 
access and development of the workforce?
    Ms. Moffitt. Well, I have been in and around your district, 
and there are incredible technical colleges that New York has. 
That is an incredible opportunity if it already isn't as a 
pipeline to develop high school students and college students 
who are interested in different career options, making sure 
that they know that working in a lab or working in an animal 
health capacity in some way, shape, or form I think is a really 
important part of building the pipeline. And the technical 
colleges that New York has, as well as technical colleges that 
we heard in Connecticut, are really a valuable tool there.
    Mr. Molinaro. Yes. I think just to further that point, 
expanding K-12 ag education, making the connectivity through 
vocational applied and life science education, and of course 
making the connectivity to community colleges and higher 
education institutions as a means of not only creating the 
pathway but also expanding and supporting agriculture in 
upstate New York. So I just appreciate that and look forward 
perhaps to hosting a visit at Cornell.
    Mr. Chairman, thanks very much.
    Ms. Moffitt. I will just add, we talked about this earlier, 
but the pipeline in schools is important, pipeline through 4-H 
and FFA and all those other programs are important as well.
    The Chairman. Next, the chair recognizes the Congressman 
from Texas, Congressman Jackson, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Jackson of Texas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate 
you squeaking me in here right at the end. It looks like I got 
here seconds before we are done, but thank you. I have four 
committees, so it has been chaos today. But thank you to our 
witnesses for being here today.
    As you may or may not know, I represent the 13th 
Congressional District of Texas. It is one of the largest 
animal agriculture districts in the country. Texas 13 has more 
fed cattle than anywhere else in the entire U.S., representing 
over $16.5 billion in economic value. The work that you all do 
in the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is critical 
to the overall health of the animal agriculture industry in my 
district and the rest of the country, and I appreciate it.
    Under Secretary Moffitt, I wanted to ask you, foot-and-
mouth disease is right off the coast of one of our major 
trading partners right now, Australia, in Indonesia. African 
swine fever has been found in the Dominican Republic, a mere 
stone's throw away from Puerto Rico. Your testimony underlines 
the catastrophic impacts these and other foreign animal 
diseases would have in the U.S. if and when an outbreak were to 
occur. Can you speak to the importance of continuing to bolster 
the National Animal Vaccine and Veterinary Countermeasure Bank 
in the next farm bill, including further funding to meet our 
ever-growing need in protecting from foot-and-mouth disease and 
other foreign animal diseases that we might encounter?
    Ms. Moffitt. Thank you so much for that question. And I 
will pass it to Dr. Naugle to talk about the vaccine bank. And 
then of course as you recognize, the preparedness, the 
response, making sure that we are keeping it out in the first 
place, but the vaccine bank--but, important is biosecurity and 
stamping out the disease, and that vaccine bank adds an 
important insurance tool as well.
    But I will pass it to Dr. Naugle to talk about the vaccine 
bank.
    Dr. Naugle. Sure. A couple of additional details here, so 
we have purchased over $56 million in vaccine antigen 
concentrate for FMD and finished vaccine for CSF, which is 
classical swine fever. Also important in the bank is it is a 
countermeasures bank in addition to a vaccine bank, so we 
purchased diagnostic test kits for FMD and ASF, African swine 
fever, so we can be ready to respond as quickly as we detect 
those diseases. Currently, our goal is to have a minimum of 25 
million doses available for each of the top ten strains for 
FMD, and we are working toward that goal. So I do think that 
the bank and having access to those vaccines is critically 
important from a preparedness perspective.
    Mr. Jackson of Texas. Thank you. I agree, and I think that 
prevention obviously is way cheaper than trying to treat once 
it gets here. I think we all understand that.
    Madam Under Secretary, I was going to ask you one more 
question. In your testimony, you mentioned how foreign disease 
outbreaks highlight the critical need for public-sector animal 
health professionals, especially veterinarians. I just want to 
point out that in my district, the Texas Tech University School 
of Veterinary Medicine is specialized in training the types of 
large rural animal vets that we need so desperately right now 
in the country, vets that the USDA needs to maintain the health 
of America's animal agriculture industry. I am hopeful that the 
USDA recognizes the potential of the Texas Tech University 
School of Veterinary Medicine as a pipeline to the talent that 
they so desperately need when staffing shortages at the agency. 
Can you please expand on the opportunities that you are taking 
to recruit and retain talented individuals like the ones I am 
describing?
    Ms. Moffitt. Representative, thank you so much for that 
question and for highlighting, I think some of the important--
part of our pipeline development is of course veterinary 
schools across the country. These are important for us in many 
ways. I had the opportunity not to visit Texas Tech but to 
visit another university, another vet school, and to meet with 
students and talk about the opportunities for working at APHIS, 
at USDA as a whole. And I know our team at APHIS, our team at 
USDA are constantly reaching out and recruiting students from 
vet schools across the country, I would imagine including Texas 
Tech.
    And I can pass it to Dr. Naugle to talk about some of the 
scholarship programs, some of the internship programs that we 
have as well so that we are not just doing recruitment but we 
are also really feeding that pipeline.
    Dr. Naugle. Thank you. First, I would say there is a lot of 
opportunity for students who are interested in working for us 
in Texas, right? We have the Cattle Fever Tick Program. We also 
have the southern border ports that we cover, so these could be 
veterinarians, as well as animal health technicians, really 
anyone interested in agriculture.
    Within USDA APHIS, we have several internship programs for 
students, college students, high school students. We also have 
an internship program that is a scholarship program. It is 
called the Saul T. Wilson Scholarship, and it allows us to 
provide some funding to help students go to veterinary school 
and return to us. And we are very well aware of the program at 
Texas Tech, as well as programs at Texas A&M.
    Mr. Jackson of Texas. Yes, and we have a component of Texas 
A&M in my district as well that does the first couple of years 
of that type of training. It is a phenomenal program as well. I 
understand, as a physician, how the money that is out there 
available to you based on what specialty you pick is going to 
drive a lot of what you do. I also know my district director 
and my treasurer in my district are large animal vets, and I 
know that like a lot of people will choose to be small animal 
vets because that is where the money is at, so anything I think 
that you can do to foster people wanting to go into taking care 
of our cattle and our large animals and stuff is going to be 
very beneficial to us all in the long run.
    Thank you. With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Under the Rules of the Committee, 
the record of today's hearing will remain open for 10 calendar 
days to receive additional material and supplementary written 
responses from the witnesses to any question posed by a Member.
    This hearing of the Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and 
Poultry is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 11:43 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
    [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
 Submitted Material by Hon. Tracey Mann, a Representative in Congress 
                              From Kansas

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                 ______
                                 
 Supplementary Material Submitted by Hon. Jenny Lester Moffitt, Under 
  Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs, U.S. Department of 
                              Agriculture
Insert 1
          Mr. Feenstra. Awesome. So I am just going to pivot here, and 
        it has the same theme. African swine fever. The depopulation of 
        birds is one thing. When you have to euthanize hogs is another 
        thing. And we saw this with COVID when we had to do it with 
        COVID. Are you really taking serious measures of what this is 
        going to look like when you have to depopulate large animals 
        and where are they going to go? And I know China is having this 
        issue, right? I mean, you can't really just bury them because 
        the disease stays. I mean, have these things been thought 
        through?
          Ms. Moffitt. Representative Feenstra, thank you for the 
        really important question. As we have been, we have been 
        absolutely preparing for the, I hope, unlikely event of African 
        swine fever in the country. With that said, we know that we 
        need to be ready, and we have been investing through funding 
        through NADPRP, as well as through the CCC funding that the 
        Secretary has authorized for African swine fever, different 
        mechanisms and rapid response so that we understand how to do 
        disposal.
          Dr. Naugle, perhaps you can talk a little bit--oh, we are out 
        of time.
          Mr. Feenstra. Yes. Yes. Thank you. I would like a response to 
        that in writing at some point, okay? Thank you. I yield back.

    We understand the importance of having plans in place for 
depopulation of livestock and poultry, especially large animals. While 
we hope to never have to use these tools and techniques, we have plans 
in place for what APHIS and its state and industry partners would need 
to do in event of an outbreak. USDA relies on livestock and poultry 
depopulation guidelines set by the American Veterinary Medical 
Association (AVMA), which has identified preferred, permitted, and non-
recommended methods for each species. The USDA, state animal health 
officials, and producers carefully weigh the different options to 
determine the best option for humane depopulation and do not make such 
decisions lightly.
    The various tabletop exercises and trainings we have conducted, 
some of which were funded through the farm bill's animal health 
programs, help us work through various scenarios so that we are able to 
make the best decisions using the lessons we learned from those 
practice scenarios. I would also note, that aside from those exercises, 
the farm bill's animal health programs have funded projects focused on 
bettering our understanding of depopulation and disposal techniques. 
Even if the project was focused on one state or one species of animal, 
we have seen that those lessons and strategies developed through those 
projects can be applicable widely.
Insert 2
          Ms. Moffitt. . . .
          . . . And we have different things like an internship 
        program. Dr. Naugle can talk a little bit more about some of 
        the different programs that we have so that we build and keep 
        the pipeline coming into APHIS and to USDA across the board.
          Mr. Alford. I would like to hear about that because I know 
        this is a big concern all over America, workforce.
          Ms. Moffitt. Yes.
          Mr. Alford. How are you getting young people interested in 
        this, really which is a national security issue?
          Dr. Naugle. Well, sir, I think that is it. That is the 
        challenge that we all have, right, and we need to start young. 
        We need to start with students that are in 4-H, FFA, perhaps 
        targeting in areas where we know there are major livestock 
        industries to get some of those students interested in animal 
        health jobs. We do have numerous internships within APHIS for 
        really all ages of students, whether high school, all the way 
        up through college, and we do have the premier Saul T. Wilson 
        Scholarship Program and internship that provides some funding 
        for students to attend veterinary school, and upon completion, 
        they return and work for us for a certain period of years. But 
        I think it is really going to take effort from all of us. I 
        don't think it is something that APHIS can do alone. And I 
        think we really need to leverage groups like 4-H and FFA.
          Mr. Alford. Madam Under Secretary, what can we do in Congress 
        to help you in this effort?
          Ms. Moffitt. Well, that is a very good question. I can take 
        that back with our team to look more at what types of things 
        that we could ask for from Congress for this and get back to 
        you.

    The outbreak of highly-pathogenic avian influenza again 
demonstrated how important having a dedicated and skilled workforce is 
to protecting agriculture. It also demonstrated our need to improve 
recruitment and retention efforts, and we really appreciate this 
question.
    Staff are considering several options to address this need. Each 
option will have a budgetary impact. USDA will consider each of the 
options within the context of the annual budget process.
                                 ______
                                 
                          Submitted Questions
Response from Hon. Jenny Lester Moffitt, Under Secretary for Marketing 
        and Regulatory Programs, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Question Submitted by Hon. Trent Kelly, a Representative in Congress 
        from Mississippi
    Question. Madam Under Secretary, my home state of Mississippi is a 
large poultry state, producing more than $3.8 billion of poultry 
products, making it our number one commodity in terms of economic 
value, a position it's held for 28 consecutive years over all other 
commodities grown in the state. Among the poultry growing states, we 
typically rank 5th in the nation in broiler production.
    I first want to commend the agency for all their work on the highly 
pathogenic avian influenza issue. Fortunately, to date, Mississippi has 
only had one positive case of HPAI, found in a commercial broiler 
operation this November.
    Back in 2015, a group of stakeholders, including several from my 
state, led an effort to make the APHIS indemnification process more 
equitable for the contract grower, in the event that birds have to be 
depopulated on-farm. It is my understanding that USDA did in fact make 
those recommended adjustments and created a protocol to which the 
contract grower is compensated for many of the costs that they have 
invested in raising the bird to the point of depopulation. Will you 
update the Committee on that change and tell the Committee if that 
process is working well?
    Answer. In 2018, APHIS published a final rule that allows for 
contract growers to receive a portion of the indemnity compensation for 
the work they had performed at the time when birds are depopulated 
because of highly pathogenic avian influenza. By all accounts, this 
process is working well, and producers are receiving the funding to 
which they are entitled. Indemnity funding remains an important tool, 
encouraging producers to quickly report illness in their birds, and 
allowing APHIS and its partners to move rapidly to eliminate the 
potential spread of the virus.
Questions Submitted by Hon. Randy Feenstra, a Representative in 
        Congress from Iowa
    Question 1. Under Secretary Moffitt, I'm aware that EPA has three 
ongoing risk assessments for formaldehyde, and it seems the EPA is on a 
path to set unscientifically supported and extremely low exposure 
limits that will in effect ban it's use in the U.S. Many of my 
constituents are concerned about losing this important product for 
agricultural applications. Formaldehyde and formaldehyde-based products 
provide critical applications for crop production, veterinary medicine, 
animal agriculture and aquaculture, from protecting against Salmonella 
in hatching eggs or feed, to a disinfectant on-farm, fungal control in 
aquaculture or to help increase crop yields. Research has also shown it 
could be our most effective risk mitigation tool against African swine 
fever if it ever came to the United States. What are you doing to 
ensure agriculture's voice is heard and considered in this debate so my 
constituents don't lose this important tool that can be and has been 
used safely in agricultural applications for decades?
    Answer. APHIS coordinates with EPA on the effectiveness of 
disinfectants they approve for specific livestock and poultry 
pathogens, particularly related to foreign animal diseases response. 
APHIS also maintains lists of those EPA-approved products. With regards 
to USDA's role in ensuring agriculture's voice is heard in discussions 
around pesticide regulatory actions, USDA has an office specifically 
dedicated to serving as the voice of the grower, the Office of Pest 
Management Policy (OPMP). As part of OPMP's review process, OPMP will 
reach out to affected growers and collaborate with APHIS following the 
release of the risk assessments to raise awareness, and OPMP will 
ensure grower concerns are reflected in feedback to EPA.

    Question 2. Under Secretary Moffitt, the National Institute of 
Antimicrobial Resistance Research and Education (NIAMRRE) led by Iowa 
State University, and of which University of California Davis is a very 
active member, has been working with USDA APHIS to understand the how 
to best collect and share antimicrobial use and antimicrobial 
resistance (AMR) data for livestock operations. A key outcome of that 
work has identified that having statutory protections, similar to HIPAA 
laws for human health, would allow for better collection of AMR data 
and lead to more effective decision-making. How could these data 
security protections be provided and implemented at the national level?
    Answer. Protecting producer data is a priority for USDA. We have 
heard concerns from producers and veterinarians about the 
confidentiality of data, and it is possible that those concerns are 
preventing some participation in these important programs. We have 
experience, through some of our animal health surveys in protecting the 
confidentiality of data and encouraging producer participation. We 
would be happy to continue to work with NIAMRRE and Congress to 
identify possible solutions for the issues they raise and identify 
whether statutory changes would be needed.

    Question 3. Under Secretary Moffitt, through federally appropriated 
funds, NIAMRRE has also been actively working with APHIS to create an 
AMR Dashboard to monitor AMR and antimicrobial use. Building off this 
existing work, how do you plan to prioritize efforts to combat AMR and 
how could you utilize this dashboard to carry out those plans?
    Answer. The AMR dashboards are an important tool in our Agency's 
broader One Health Strategy. APHIS and our partners will use AMR 
dashboards to monitor trends in antimicrobial resistance patterns, 
detect emerging resistance profiles, and better understand 
relationships between antimicrobial use and health management practices 
and antimicrobial resistance. In November 2022, APHIS announced a 
competitive funding opportunity to develop dashboard tools to improve 
access to information on AMR in domesticated animals through public 
private partnerships. APHIS is thoroughly reviewing those proposals, 
and we look forward to announcing the projects that will be funded 
soon.

    Question 4. Under Secretary Moffitt, are you aware that U.S. EPA 
has proposed restricting the use of rodent control pesticides 
rodenticides that will make it significantly harder and much more 
costly for many poultry and livestock producers to control rats and 
mice on their operations? Can you engage with your counterparts at EPA 
to seek rodenticide policies that do not impose any unnecessary 
restrictions and that EPA fully take into account animal health and 
welfare in whatever they do?
    Answer. APHIS and OPMP did provide technical input as EPA was 
considering possible rodenticide actions, and OPMP provided formal 
public comment during the comment period. In addition, OPMP conducted a 
survey around the proposed actions using the authority granted by the 
2018 Farm Bill to provide more information to EPA on the impacts of 
their proposal. We will continue to inform EPA of the unique needs of 
the agricultural community as they make decisions.
Questions Submitted by Hon. Max L. Miller, a Representative in Congress 
        from Ohio
    Question 1. Please share how USDA is working with state, veterinary 
and industry partners to ensure resources and processes are in place to 
address foreign animal disease outbreaks, which have capacity to 
cripple the agricultural sector if not prepared?
    Answer. Partnerships are essential to ensuring we are prepared to 
detect and respond to foreign animal diseases. As an example, during 
the current outbreak of highly pathogenic avian influenza, we have 
worked closely with our state partners in every state to rapidly detect 
and respond to the virus. We have worked hand-in-hand with our industry 
partners, sharing information about the outbreak and enlisting their 
help in spreading the message of the importance of biosecurity. Those 
efforts have helped us control the disease and led to the success we 
have seen where we have very few cases of the virus in commercial 
facilities, and those that we do see are eradicated quickly.

    Question 2. Please let us know how programs such as the National 
Animal Disease Preparedness and Response Program, the National Animal 
Vaccine and Veterinary Countermeasures Bank, and the National Animal 
Health Laboratory Network, which includes a partnership with the Ohio 
Department of Agriculture's Animal Health Division, support this 
mission?
    Answer. The farm bill's animal health programs have been a critical 
tool in our efforts to protect animal health and expand our 
capabilities to detect and respond to foreign animal diseases. Key to 
that success is that the programs have allowed us to strengthen 
partnerships with states, such as the one you mention with Ohio 
Department of Agriculture's Animal Health Division. The National Animal 
Disease Preparedness and Response Program provides funding to states, 
universities, industry organizations, Tribal partners, and other 
eligible entities for projects to help identify and fill in gaps in our 
existing preparedness and response capabilities and help prevent and 
prepare for the most serious animal diseases. Of note, Ohio received 
about $500,000 for a project on effective depopulation methods. As part 
of the National Animal Vaccine and Veterinary Countermeasures Bank, 
APHIS has invested more than $56 million to amass a stockpile of foot-
and-mouth vaccine, with more than $15 million more planned for FY 2023. 
We've also started accumulating foreign animal disease diagnostic test 
kits and are planning for additional types of vaccines and 
countermeasures to make sure the United States is well-prepared for 
future emergencies. The additional support of the National Animal 
Health Laboratory Network helps us partner with states and universities 
in building diagnostic capacity and technical knowledge so that we can 
rapidly detect foreign animal diseases, which is critical to stamping 
out foreign animal diseases.

                                  [all]