U.S. Swine Health Improvement Plan Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Kaptur, Marcy [D-OH-9]
- Committees
- Agriculture Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Oct 26, 2026
Bottom line
This bill formalizes and funds a voluntary cooperative program to enhance biosecurity and disease monitoring across the U.S. swine industry, building on an existing pilot program to protect against devastating diseases.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Animal Health Protection Act to formally establish the U.S. Swine Health Improvement Plan (US SHIP) as a voluntary federal-state-industry cooperative program. Its primary goal is to prevent and monitor specific swine diseases, such as African swine fever and classical swine fever, by certifying swine facilities that adhere to biosecurity, traceability, and surveillance standards. The bill also mandates the Secretary of Agriculture to finalize a related proposed rule within one year and authorizes $4.5 million annually for fiscal years 2027 through 2031 to fund the program.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that formalizing US SHIP provides a critical, proactive defense against devastating swine diseases, protecting the U.S. pork industry, its economic stability, and the broader food supply. They emphasize the voluntary nature and cooperative approach as effective ways to achieve widespread participation and robust health standards, while the authorized funding ensures the program's sustainability and expansion.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that while disease prevention is important, a voluntary program might not achieve universal compliance, potentially leaving gaps in biosecurity that could still allow disease entry. Some may also question the necessity of federal funding for a program that expands on an industry-established pilot, suggesting the industry should bear a greater share of the cost, or that the authorized appropriation is either insufficient or excessive for its stated goals.
The bill is very concise and clearly written, making it straightforward for any interested reader to understand its core provisions and implications quickly.
Section 2, amending the Animal Health Protection Act by inserting new Section 10409B(a).
Establishment of the U.S. Swine Health Improvement Plan (US SHIP)
This provision formally establishes the US Swine Health Improvement Plan (US SHIP) as a cooperative program involving federal, state, and industry partners. Its purpose is to prevent and monitor specific swine diseases, such as African swine fever and classical swine fever, by certifying swine facilities that meet certain biosecurity, traceability, and surveillance standards. The program is voluntary and expands upon a pilot program initiated by the swine industry in 2020.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that formalizing US SHIP is crucial for protecting the U.S. swine population and the broader agricultural economy from devastating foreign animal diseases. They contend that a cooperative, voluntary approach fosters industry buy-in and effective implementation of biosecurity measures, which are essential for preventing outbreaks and maintaining international trade.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that a voluntary program may not be sufficient to achieve comprehensive disease prevention, as facilities opting out could pose risks. Some might also express concern about the administrative burden on participating facilities or the potential for uneven enforcement across states.
Tradeoffs
The tension lies between the desire for comprehensive disease prevention and the preference for a voluntary, industry-led approach. While voluntarism encourages participation, it might not guarantee universal adoption of the highest standards, potentially leaving vulnerabilities.
Section 2, amending the Animal Health Protection Act by inserting new Section 10409B(b)(2).
Establishment of an Advisory Committee
This provision mandates the establishment of an advisory committee, in accordance with federal law, to study swine health problems and make recommendations to the Secretary of Agriculture. Specifically, the committee will advise on how the Secretary can assist the swine industry with health issues and provide recommendations for the administration of the US Swine Health Improvement Plan.
Section 2, amending the Animal Health Protection Act by inserting new Section 10409B(c).
Mandate for Finalizing US SHIP Rule
This provision requires the Secretary of Agriculture to finalize a proposed rule titled "US Swine Health Improvement Plan" within one year of the bill's enactment. This final rule must take into account comments received during a public comment period that concluded in February 2025, following a proposed rule published in December 2024.
Section 2, amending the Animal Health Protection Act by inserting new Section 10409B(e)(1).
Funding for US SHIP
This provision authorizes the appropriation of $4,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2027 through 2031 to carry out the US Swine Health Improvement Plan. These funds are designated to remain available until expended, ensuring flexibility in their use.
This provision exempts the expenses of the US SHIP advisory committee from general limitations on the expenses of advisory committees, panels, commissions, and task forces of the Department of Agriculture, unless an appropriation Act specifically refers to this section and includes the committee within the limitation.
Section 2, amending the Animal Health Protection Act by inserting new Section 10409B(e)(2).
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to ensure that a specifically authorized committee is not inadvertently constrained by broader, often lower, spending caps applied to advisory bodies across an agency. It's not necessarily evasive but requires careful reading.
Case for: Supporters would argue that this exemption ensures the advisory committee can operate effectively without being hampered by general spending caps, allowing it to fulfill its critical role in guiding the US SHIP program. It prioritizes the committee's function.
Case against: Critics might argue that such exemptions can lead to a proliferation of committees operating outside standard fiscal controls, potentially increasing overall administrative costs without sufficient oversight. It could be seen as creating a special carve-out.
Estimated impact: The financial impact is likely modest, related to the operational costs of an advisory committee (travel, per diem, administrative support), but the policy impact is ensuring the committee's functional autonomy.