To amend the Food Security Act of 1985 with respect to the feral swine eradication and control program, and for other purposes.
- Sponsor
- Rep. Moore, Barry [R-AL-1]
- Committees
- Agriculture Committee (primary)
- Last action
- May 15, 2025
Bottom line
H.R. 3457 creates a permanent, federally funded program to combat feral swine, aiming to protect agriculture, ecosystems, and public health through coordinated efforts and financial aid to producers.
What it actually does
This bill establishes a new Feral Swine Eradication and Control Program within the Food Security Act of 1985, replacing a previous pilot program. It mandates the Secretary of Agriculture to study damage, develop control and restoration methods, and provide financial assistance to agricultural producers. The program allocates $150 million over five fiscal years, distributed between the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), and requires coordination with land-grant universities.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that feral swine pose a significant and growing threat to agricultural crops, livestock, native ecosystems, and carry diseases that endanger human and animal health. A dedicated, well-funded, and coordinated federal program is essential to effectively manage and reduce these populations, providing necessary resources and expertise to affected communities and producers.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that while feral swine are a problem, a large, permanent federal program might be an overreach or inefficient, preferring state-led initiatives or more targeted, temporary pilot programs. Concerns could also be raised about the effectiveness of eradication methods or potential ecological impacts of widespread control efforts.
The bill is very concise, allowing for a quick and thorough understanding of its provisions by any interested reader.
Section 1(a), inserting new Section 1240N(a)
Program Establishment and Purpose
This provision formally establishes the Feral Swine Eradication and Control Program, making it a permanent part of the Food Security Act of 1985. Its stated purpose is to address the threats feral swine pose to agriculture, native ecosystems, and human and animal health.
Supporters argue
Supporters contend that a permanent, dedicated program is crucial for a sustained and effective response to the widespread and escalating problem of feral swine, providing a clear mandate for federal action.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against the general establishment of a program to address a recognized pest, though debates may arise over its scope or funding.
Tradeoffs
The tension lies between the need for a robust federal response and potential concerns about federal overreach into issues traditionally managed at state or local levels.
Section 1(a), inserting new Section 1240N(b)
Secretary's Mandated Actions
The Secretary of Agriculture is directed to carry out specific duties under the program. These include studying and assessing the damage caused by feral swine, developing methods for their eradication or control, developing methods to restore damaged areas, and providing financial assistance to agricultural producers in threatened areas.
Section 1(a), inserting new Section 1240N(c)
Producer Financial Assistance
This provision authorizes the Secretary to provide financial assistance to agricultural producers. This aid is specifically for implementing methods to eradicate or control feral swine on their land and to restore any damage caused by these animals.
Section 1(a), inserting new Section 1240N(d) and (e)
Inter-Agency and Academic Coordination
The bill mandates coordination between the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) through State technical committees. Additionally, it directs the Secretary to contract with eligible land-grant colleges or universities to conduct research, identify threatened areas, coordinate with field staff, and consult on research goals, leveraging academic expertise.
Section 1(a), inserting new Section 1240N(h)
Mandatory Funding and Distribution
The bill provides mandatory funding of $150,000,000 for the program for fiscal years 2026 through 2030. These funds are specifically allocated: 40% to NRCS for on-farm trapping and technology, and 60% to APHIS for established and innovative population reduction methods. A cap of 10% is placed on administrative expenses.
Section 1(b) and (c)
Repeal of Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 Feral Swine Pilot Program
This section explicitly repeals Section 2408 of the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, which established a previous Feral Swine Eradication and Control Pilot Program. This action transitions from a temporary, pilot approach to the new, permanent program established by H.R. 3457.
The bill mandates $150,000,000 for the program for fiscal years 2026 through 2030, explicitly stating that these funds are 'Of the funds made available under section 1241(a)(3)(A)'.
Section 1(a), inserting new Section 1240N(h)(1)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for referencing existing funding mechanisms rather than detailing them within the bill itself. It ensures the new program's funding is tied to an established, mandatory source.
Case for: Supporters would argue that tying the funding to a mandatory source like the CCC ensures consistent, reliable funding for a critical program, insulating it from annual appropriations battles.
Case against: Critics might argue that using mandatory spending for this program reduces congressional control over federal expenditures and could draw funds away from other priorities within the broader agricultural budget.
Estimated impact: $150 million in mandatory spending over five fiscal years (FY2026-2030).
The bill limits administrative expenses for the program to 'Not more than 10 percent of funds made available under this section'.
Section 1(a), inserting new Section 1240N(h)(3)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to ensure a significant portion of funds goes directly to program activities rather than overhead. It's not necessarily evasive but can be missed.
Case for: Proponents would argue that this cap ensures efficiency and maximizes the funds directly applied to eradication, control, and restoration efforts, demonstrating fiscal responsibility.
Case against: Critics might contend that a strict 10% cap could hinder effective program management, especially for a complex, multi-agency effort involving research and coordination, potentially leading to under-resourced administrative functions.
Estimated impact: Limits administrative spending to a maximum of $15 million over five years.