The Capitol LedgerEvery move in Congress, on the record
HomeBillsRecordsLedger AI

The Capitol Ledger

Built from the Congressional Record and Congress.gov. Every summary links to its source.

AboutFAQFeedbackTerms of ServicePrivacy Policy
Follow us onlineInstagram

Summaries are AI-generated from primary sources. Verify anything important against the original record.

The Capitol Ledger

Built from the Congressional Record and Congress.gov. Every summary links to its source.

The projectAboutFAQFeedback
LegalTerms of ServicePrivacy Policy
Follow us onlineInstagram

Summaries are AI-generated from primary sources. Verify anything important against the original record.

All bills
S. 4893·119th Congress·Introduced Jun 24, 2026

U.S. Swine Health Improvement Plan Act of 2026

IntroducedAgriculture and FoodSubstantive
View bill text
Sponsor
Sen. Husted, Jon [R-OH]
Committees
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee (primary)
Last action
Jun 24, 2026

Bottom line

The bill creates a federally supported, voluntary program to improve disease prevention and response capabilities for the U.S. swine industry, backed by an advisory committee and specific funding.

What it actually does

This bill amends the Animal Health Protection Act to establish a voluntary U.S. Swine Health Improvement Plan (USSHIP). The plan aims to enhance biosecurity, traceability, disease surveillance, and preparedness for foreign animal diseases within the U.S. swine industry. It also mandates the creation of a federal advisory committee and requires the Secretary of Agriculture to finalize a specific proposed rule within one year to implement the plan.

Proponents argue

Proponents argue this bill is crucial for protecting the U.S. swine industry from devastating disease outbreaks, particularly foreign animal diseases like African Swine Fever. They contend that a standardized, voluntary program will encourage widespread adoption of best practices in biosecurity and traceability, safeguarding animal health and economic stability for producers. The advisory committee ensures industry input, and the dedicated funding provides necessary resources for implementation.

Opponents contend

Opponents might express concerns that even a voluntary program could lead to increased regulatory burdens and compliance costs for participating producers, potentially disadvantaging smaller operations. They may also question the effectiveness of a voluntary system in achieving comprehensive disease control if participation rates are low, or argue that federal involvement could duplicate or interfere with existing state-level animal health initiatives.

The bill text is very short and can be read quickly, making it accessible for immediate understanding of its core purpose.

Section 2, new Section 10409B(a)

Establishment of U.S. Swine Health Improvement Plan (USSHIP)

prominently featuredstraightforward

This provision directs the Secretary of Agriculture to create and maintain a voluntary certification program for swine diseases. This program, named the 'U.S. Swine Health Improvement Plan,' is designed to enhance biosecurity measures, improve the ability to trace animals, strengthen disease surveillance systems, and bolster preparedness against foreign animal diseases within the swine industry.

GroupImpactMechanismScale
GroupU.S. Swine Industry (producers, processors)ImpactBenefit through enhanced disease prevention and market stability.MechanismParticipation in a voluntary certification program that standardizes biosecurity and traceability practices.ScaleIndustry-wide potential for improved health outcomes and reduced economic risk from disease outbreaks.
GroupU.S. ConsumersImpactBenefit from a more secure and stable pork supply.MechanismReduced risk of disease outbreaks impacting production and prices.ScaleNational food security and economic stability.

Supporters argue

Supporters argue that establishing USSHIP is a proactive and essential step to protect the nation's swine herd and the economic viability of the pork industry. They emphasize that a voluntary, standardized program will encourage widespread adoption of best practices, making the entire industry more resilient to disease threats.

Critics contend

Critics might suggest that while the goal is laudable, a voluntary program may not achieve the necessary level of participation to be truly effective against highly contagious diseases. They could also argue that the program might impose indirect costs on producers, even if voluntary, for compliance and certification.

Tradeoffs

The primary tension is between the desire for comprehensive disease control and the preference for a voluntary, industry-led approach. A voluntary program offers flexibility but might not achieve universal adoption, potentially leaving gaps in biosecurity. A mandatory program could ensure broader compliance but would likely face stronger industry resistance due to perceived burdens.

Section 2, new Section 10409B(b) and (c)

Advisory Committee and Rulemaking Mandate

prominently featuredmoderately complex

This provision requires the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a Federal advisory committee to provide recommendations for the administration of the USSHIP. Furthermore, it mandates that within one year of the bill's enactment, the Secretary must finalize a specific proposed rule (89 Fed. Reg. 107045 (December 31, 2024)) to formally establish both the USSHIP and its advisory committee, taking into account public comments received on the proposed rule.

Section 2, new Section 10409B(d)

Authorization of Appropriations

mentioned in summarystraightforward

This provision authorizes the appropriation of $4,500,000 for each of the fiscal years 2027 through 2031 to carry out the U.S. Swine Health Improvement Plan. These funds are authorized to remain available until expended, meaning they do not expire at the end of the fiscal year if not spent.

FOUND

The bill mandates the Secretary to establish the USSHIP by finalizing a specific proposed rule: 'US Swine Health Improvement Plan' (89 Fed. Reg. 107045 (December 31, 2024)).

Section 2, new Section 10409B(c)

Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice when a bill aims to codify or accelerate an existing administrative process. It defers the detailed policy specifics to the regulatory agency, which often has more technical expertise and a public comment process.

Case for: Supporters would argue that referencing an existing proposed rule leverages prior agency work and public input, streamlining the implementation process. It allows the technical details to be handled by experts at USDA, who are best equipped to develop the specifics of a swine health plan.

Case against: Critics might contend that by mandating the finalization of a specific rule, Congress is effectively delegating significant legislative power to the executive branch without full transparency in the bill text. This approach can make it harder for the public and even lawmakers to fully understand the operational details and potential impacts of the plan directly from the legislation.

Estimated impact: The entire operational framework and specific requirements of the USSHIP, including biosecurity protocols, traceability standards, and surveillance methods, will be defined by this referenced rule.

About this analysis. AI-Generated from the official bill text and available committee reports. Gaps in available data are noted explicitly. Verify important details with the official Congress.gov record.

On this page

  • Executive summary
  • Key provisions
  • Buried treasure
  • Follow the money
  • Critical analysis
  • Questions to ask
Ask Ledger AI about this