[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD
AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION AND RELATED
AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2026
_______________________________________________________________________
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND
DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES
ANDY HARRIS, Maryland, Chairman
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama
DAVID G. VALADAO, California
JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan
DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
JULIA LETLOW, Louisiana
BEN CLINE, Virginia
ASHLEY HINSON, Iowa
SCOTT FRANKLIN, Florida,
Vice Chair
SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia,
Ranking Member
CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
LAUREN UNDERWOOD, Illinois
MARIE GLUESENKAMP PEREZ,
Washington
MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
NOTE: Under committee rules, Mr. Cole, as chairman of the full
committee, and Ms. DeLauro, as ranking minority member of the full
committee, are authorized to sit as members of all subcommittees.
Pam Miller, Elizabeth Dent, Nick Seelinger,
Judd Gardner and Sykes Connell
Subcommittee Staff
__________
PART 1
Page
Members' Day......................................... 1
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
61-938 WASHINGTON : 2026
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
----------
TOM COLE, Oklahoma, Chairman
HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky,
Chairman Emeritus
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama
MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas
KEN CALVERT, California
MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas
CHARLES J. ``CHUCK'' FLEISCHMANN,
Tennessee
DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio
ANDY HARRIS, Maryland
MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada
DAVID G. VALADAO, California
DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan
JOHN H. RUTHERFORD, Florida
BEN CLINE, Virginia
GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
ASHLEY HINSON, Iowa
TONY GONZALES, Texas
JULIA LETLOW, Louisiana
MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas
MICHAEL GUEST, Mississippi
RYAN K. ZINKE, Montana
ANDREW S. CLYDE, Georgia
STEPHANIE I. BICE, Oklahoma
SCOTT FRANKLIN, Florida
JAKE ELLZEY, Texas
JUAN CISCOMANI, Arizona
CHUCK EDWARDS, North Carolina
MARK ALFORD, Missouri
NICK LaLOTA, New York
DALE W. STRONG, Alabama
CELESTE MALOY, Utah
RILEY M. MOORE, West Virginia
ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut,
Ranking Member
STENY H. HOYER, Maryland
MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
JAMES E. CLYBURN, South Carolina
SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia
BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
GRACE MENG, New York
MARK POCAN, Wisconsin
PETE AGUILAR, California
LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey
NORMA J. TORRES, California
ED CASE, Hawaii
ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York
JOSH HARDER, California
LAUREN UNDERWOOD, Illinois
SUSIE LEE, Nevada
JOSEPH D. MORELLE, New York
MIKE LEVIN, California
MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
FRANK J. MRVAN, Indiana
MARIE GLUESENKAMP PEREZ,
Washington
GLENN IVEY, Maryland
Susan Ross, Chief Clerk and Staff Director
(II)
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2026
----------
Tuesday, April 29, 2025.
MEMBERS' DAY
Mr. Harris. The subcommittee will come to order.
Good morning. I want to thank all of you for coming to
today's hearing to receive testimony from our colleagues.
I look forward to hearing more about the projects and
programs in the ag appropriations bill that are important to
your district and to communities across the country. Your input
will be critical as we work to fund the agencies under this
subcommittee's jurisdiction.
I look forward to working with Ranking Member Bishop and
our subcommittee colleagues to accommodate these priorities as
best we can as the fiscal year 2026 appropriations process
moves forward.
Thank you again for taking time out of your busy schedule
to speak with us today and bring these issues that are
important to your community to our attention.
Ranking Member Bishop, I yield to you for any opening
remarks you would like to make.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Chairman Harris.
I am looking forward to hearing testimony from
Representative Hageman and Representative Flood.
As often noted, the agencies in our bill conduct vital work
that touch the lives of every single American every day. We
look forward to hearing your thoughts on the programs and
issues that affect your constituents. And your input, of
course, is very valuable as we draft the fiscal year 2026 bill.
So I want to thank you for taking your time to speak to us
today, and we appreciate your interest in the work of our
subcommittee.
And, with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Harris. Thank you very much.
Mr. Harris. Representative Hageman, you are recognized.
----------
Tuesday, April 29, 2025.
WITNESS
THE HON. HARRIET HAGEMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE
OF WYOMING
Ms. Hageman. Chairman Harris, Ranking Member Bishop, thank
you for the opportunity to testify before you today.
As you begin the fiscal year 2026 appropriations process, I
encourage you to block the USDA from enforcing its recent
regulation mandating electronic identification, or EID, eartags
on cattle and bison moving interstate.
Ending this unlawful mandate and destructive policy is one
of my constituents' top priorities, along with thousands of
ranchers and cattlemen across America, especially those
independent and family-owned operations that make up the heart
of the American West and our Nation's food supply.
On November 5, 2024, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service's final rule, ``Use of Electronic Identification
Eartags as Official Identification in Cattle and Bison,'' went
into effect. The rule amends the 2013 Animal Disease
Traceability Rule to mandate EID eartags for cattle and bison
that move across State lines.
Not only does USDA lack the authority to enforce such a
mandate, but it ignored the devastating repercussions of this
flawed policy and failed to follow the proper regulatory
process. Such repercussions include the destruction of
thousands of small businesses and accelerated vertical
integration of our food supply.
For States like Wyoming that lack major meat-processing
facilities, most livestock will be moved across State lines at
some point during the lifecycle to access the market. This
subjects my constituents to this rule while arbitrarily
excluding their competitors in those States with packing
operations.
In its 2013 ADT rule, the USDA estimated that the cost of a
nationwide RFID system would be between $1.2 billion and $1.9
billion, yet USDA estimates that the current rule would cost
just $26.1 million annually.
This sleight of hand was achieved by considering only the
cost of the eartags themselves, ignoring all related compliance
costs, including for wands, software, hardware, retrofitting of
infrastructure, and labor to implement a functioning EID
system.
They also included only 11 percent of the regulated
community, thereby nullifying their claim that this rule is
about disease traceability, with USDA itself admitting that it
must have 70-percent compliance for it to work for that
purpose.
I appreciate that over the last 2 years this subcommittee
has sought to shield U.S. ranchers from the cost burden of this
rule by providing $15 million to the agency for implementation.
Unfortunately, those efforts have not protected the rancher, by
no fault of this subcommittee. The underlying policy itself is
flawed, and there are simply no means to match the end to its
purported achievements.
In November, as the regulated community was preparing for
the rule to take effect, State veterinarians were already
reporting a shortage of EID tags. This shortage continues to
plague the system, forcing ranchers to buy more expensive tags
or be noncompliant with the rule.
Throughout the rulemaking process, including in response to
comments received about the proposed rule, USDA assured the
regulated community that the eartag manufacturers were prepared
to meet this mandate. Yet the shortage persists, with States as
recently as last week running out of tags and having to create
backorder lists for producers who are now in violation.
Government mandates never result in decreasing the cost or
increasing the supply of the mandated product, and the EID
situation is no exception. Tag prices have skyrocketed, meaning
the faulty $26.1 million cost estimate is even more absurd as
compared to the true cost.
If all this weren't bad enough, I reiterate that the USDA
does not possess the authority for such a rule. The EID final
rule cites the Animal Health Protection Act. Congress, however,
did not empower USDA to use the AHPA to impose such a mandate.
The law also includes no provision allowing the USDA to
impose criminal or civil penalties regarding violations of AHPA
regulations, meaning it does not have the authority to
implement the rule other than through the most extreme form of
enforcement possible, which is denying access to the interstate
cattle and bison markets, thereby essentially forcing
bankruptcy for noncompliance.
For this very reason and others, the rule is under an
active legal challenge. These policy shortcomings are a result
of a regulatory development malpractice.
After determining the rule to be significant for regulatory
flexibility purposes and that a majority of the regulated
community would be small businesses, the USDA dismissed the
rule's impact on small businesses based on outdated data and
failed to conduct a legally required RFA analysis. It failed
entirely to conduct a federalism analysis, even though States
have their own laws regarding animal traceability, and rigged
the cost analysis, as I discussed earlier.
These legal and good-governance violations are endemic to
the rule--a rule, mind you, that is a solution in search of a
problem. The U.S. produces the healthiest and highest-quality
livestock and meat in the world.
At its core, this rule was advocated for and drafted by Big
Ag, the packers, and the eartag manufacturing companies--those
corporate interests with the most to gain from this government
mandate and who wanted Federal subsidies to implement a system
that the independent and small producers do not want and cannot
afford.
The result? Massive harm to the American cattleman, further
perpetuating distrust of Washington, D.C., and the USDA.
In the face of the rule's continued operational failure,
now is the time to act, and I urge your subcommittee to address
this issue in the fiscal year 2026 appropriations bill.
Thank you, and I would await any questions.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Harris. Thank you very much, Congresswoman, for the
testimony.
So let me ask a couple of things.
One is, when you said it includes 11 percent of the
regulated communities, that is because--is that all that
travels interstate? Or where does that----
Ms. Hageman. In part, yes, it is----
Mr. Harris. Right.
Ms. Hageman [continuing]. Because in States like Kansas,
Texas, Ohio, Iowa, and Nebraska, they have packers.
Mr. Harris. Right.
Ms. Hageman. In States like Wyoming, we do not have any big
packers.
Mr. Harris. Right.
So this is all for protection against disease, but, in
essence--and I know from training as a physician, if you want
to protect against disease, you have to protect the entire
community. And what you are saying is, they are only targeting
11 percent. And it is in States where--some of the States like
yours, where there are no packers, where you have to go
interstate.
Ms. Hageman. That is exactly right.
Mr. Harris. Right.
Ms. Hageman. It is incrementalism at its best.
Mr. Harris. Right.
Ms. Hageman. They knew that the cost of this would be so
astronomical--as I said, over a decade ago, they estimated the
cost would be between, at that time, $1.2 billion to $1.9
billion. They knew that that would absolutely shock the
conscience of everybody involved in the industry, so what they
have done is they have tried to slice it and dice it so that
they can minimize what the cost is.
So, even by their own numbers, if they covered 100 percent
of the market, it is a $250 million regulation. Because they
say for 11 percent it is $26.1 million. That doesn't even cover
the cost right now, and we already have a shortage of the
eartags. And so, by their own numbers, it is a quarter-billion-
dollar regulation.
And now they are going to start trying to ramp it up and
try to cover more so that they actually get the disease-
traceability mechanism in place.
Mr. Harris. Right.
And, now, pardon my ignorance on this, but don't most
cattle have an eartag already?
Ms. Hageman. They already have eartags. We----
Mr. Harris. Right.
Ms. Hageman [continuing]. Have backtags. We have tattoos.
We have brands. Our disease-traceability system----
Mr. Harris. That is what I thought. So you could trace it;
it is just that it will involve something other than an
electronic----
Ms. Hageman. That is exactly right.
Mr. Harris [continuing]. Media trace, right?
Ms. Hageman. Right. But we already have it an incredibly
effective disease-traceability system in place, and we have for
well over 100 years.
Mr. Harris. And, finally, from what I read, beef production
is kind of at a low. Beef prices--and I do the grocery
shopping----
Ms. Hageman. Yes.
Mr. Harris [continuing]. Are pretty darn high.
Ms. Hageman. Yes.
Mr. Harris. And what it sounds like is that this rule would
actually decrease beef production further, because some
cattlemen would go out of business, and increase prices even
more.
Ms. Hageman. Vertical integration is what they are after.
And as I have indicated, when--I have been involved in this
rulemaking, actually, for over 6 years now, so I am intimately
familiar with how this came to be. The main drivers are your
eartag manufacturing companies, as you can expect, the packers,
and the big guys.
And Michigan has already adopted an EID mandate, and they
are substantially ahead of the rest of the country in terms of
reducing their small--what they refer to as their small
producers. They define a small producer as 500 cattle or less.
And their cattle industry has just really cratered since they
adopted an EID mandate because they are vertically integrating
because of the additional cost associated with the EID
requirements.
Mr. Harris. And, finally, is the current administration
actually enforcing this at this point?
Ms. Hageman. Well, you can't--they are red-tagging cattle.
So it is almost automatic, because when you are trying to sell
your cattle across--or your bison across State line, they are
red-tagging cattle. So, yes, in that there is the shortage of
the eartags.
One of the other wrinkles in this, because it does cover
bison: Tribes are some of our biggest producers of bison in the
United States. Our Tribes, especially out West, this is one of
their economic drivers. They don't view bison as livestock;
they view them as wildlife.
And so this actually applies to bison as well. I would
challenge some of the folks here in Washington, D.C., who
adopted this rule to go out on the ranches in Wyoming and try
to tag some of the ears on those bison. You know, you don't
handle them the way that you do cattle.
Mr. Harris. No. That is right.
Ms. Hageman. Yet this rule applies to our bison industry as
well. So our Tribal members have also opposed this regulation
because of what it does to them, what it does to their mandate,
in terms of running their operations.
Mr. Harris. Right. And I know that is true because we had a
bison producer in my district and they had to bring their
cattle to Pennsylvania to be slaughtered because we didn't have
a local processing----
Ms. Hageman. That is right.
Mr. Harris. And, finally, how can we solve this problem in
the short term? Because if we put this in an appropriations
bill, let's be honest, we are probably not going to get action
until the fall. But this sounds like it is an immediate problem
right now. So what can be done immediately?
Ms. Hageman. So I have introduced bills to nullify the rule
as well, as standalone bills.
Mr. Harris. Uh-huh.
Ms. Hageman. But we also want to stop them from having the
financing available to implement this regulation.
So I am continuing to push back against this, and I am also
working with the administration to see if we can get some
relief from this regulation, because it is astronomically
expensive.
And, also, just handling the cattle, you know, having to
run them through the chute--you can tell from reading this that
the people who put this together do not handle livestock. They
don't know how we brand; they don't know, you know, when we put
our cattle through the chute.
We don't handle our cattle very often. You know, they are
out in the pasture. This is not something where you are running
cattle through your chute every day so that you have the
ability to do this. Once you brand your cattle when they are
young, you don't generally handle them again until you are
going to ship them for the next stage.
So we are a--I grew up on a cow-calf operation. And you
will do your work in the spring after they calve, and then you
don't handle them again until you ship them in the fall when
they go out on pasture or go into a feedlot.
So, even that, they are adding steps to the entire process
of livestock and meat production.
Mr. Harris. Well, thank you very much. Thank you for your
passion on that.
Ranking Member Bishop, do you have a question?
Mr. Bishop. No, I appreciate your passion for this. But you
agree that the motive behind the regulation was the health,
safety, and welfare of the consuming public to be able to track
cattle in the event of disease?
Ms. Hageman. Well, I am not sure that I can agree with
that. I----
Mr. Bishop. I am sorry?
Ms. Hageman. I am not sure that I can agree with that. And
the reason that I say that is because I know what has happened
in other countries that adopted an EID mandate.
An example is, in Denmark they adopted an EID mandate, and
a year ago they imposed a $100-a-head tax onto all cattle, not
because of a disease outbreak but because of global warming.
Mr. Bishop. Because of what?
Ms. Hageman. Because of global warming, climate change.
Mr. Bishop. Uh-huh.
Ms. Hageman. And then the same thing happened in Ireland.
In Ireland a couple of years ago, they adopted an EID mandate.
And as of August of 2023, they issued an order--they didn't
follow through with it, but they issued an order that they had
to slaughter 41,000 head of cattle in Ireland, not because of a
disease outbreak but, again, because of climate change.
So I have real concerns. You know, there was such an outcry
over that, they didn't do----
Mr. Bishop. But what does the ID have to do with climate
change?
Ms. Hageman. Nothing. Production is what they claim.
Mr. Bishop. Okay. Okay.
Ms. Hageman. Nothing. Production.
And so there is that issue, and then----
Mr. Bishop. But the ID would help them to number the cattle
and----
Ms. Hageman. Yes. So, in order to issue an order like that,
you have to know where the cattle are and you have to know your
percentages.
Mr. Bishop. Uh-huh.
Ms. Hageman. So let's say Harriet Hageman runs 500 head of
cattle. They need to know that, and they need to know where
they are, so that they can say, you have to reduce your herd by
10 percent.
Mr. Bishop. Uh-huh.
Ms. Hageman. And they have to know how many I have. And
this is the way that they do that.
So we already have a very robust disease-traceability
system in place. In fact, you are talking sometimes 24 hours.
In addition to which, our cattle producers and bison producers
pay very close attention to their herds because it is their
livelihood.
So what I am concerned about is, this is a mechanism that
can be used for nefarious purposes.
Other issues associated with it are the fact that we don't
know how the data is going to be protected. All of this
information is potentially subject to FOIA, because USDA cannot
exempt itself from the Freedom of Information Act.
Mr. Bishop. Is there any reason why it should be protected?
Ms. Hageman. Yes, because there are people who want to put
ranchers out of business, again, for the climate change ideas,
and to try to prevent--especially out West. So, where I come
from, 48 percent of our surface estate is owned by the Federal
Government. We have a lot of grazing on BLM and Forest Service
lands. There are people who would love to remove all cattle off
of our BLM and Forest Service lands. You know, it used to be,
``Cattle-free by '93.''
Mr. Bishop. So they want to control what we eat, huh? They
want----
Ms. Hageman. Yes, they do.
Mr. Bishop [continuing]. To make sure we don't eat beef.
Ms. Hageman. Yeah.
So there are some aspirational reasons for the rule; I get
that. And disease traceability could be one. But, again, this
is a solution in search of a problem, because we have already
solved the traceability issue largely.
This is concentrating the market, vertical integration. And
I think it will have a very negative impact on our independent
cattle producers.
Mr. Bishop. Well, I share your concern about the vertical
integration.
Ms. Hageman. Yeah.
Mr. Bishop. But I really am concerned that we have full
traceability----
Ms. Hageman. Uh-huh.
Mr. Bishop [continuing]. Because of the possible outbreak
of disease. And somehow we need to be able to balance those
two.
Ms. Hageman. We do.
One of the things I would like to see is less imports from
countries that we know have problems. And I think that if we
start addressing it from that standpoint, we could actually be
more effective at preventing the importation of some of the
diseases that we eradicated in the United States many, many
years ago.
Mr. Bishop. Uh-huh.
Ms. Hageman. So I think that we need to be looking at our
entire food supply chain in that regard, but the imports can
also be a problem.
Mr. Bishop. Absolutely. And, of course, we have to have the
personnel there to be able to conduct that screening when they
come in.
Ms. Hageman. Uh-huh. Yes.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much. I appreciate your
testimony----
Ms. Hageman. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop [continuing]. And appreciate your appearing
before the subcommittee.
Ms. Hageman. Thank you.
Mr. Harris. Thank you.
Ms. Underwood.
Ms. Underwood. Well, thank you, Congresswoman Hageman, for
coming in today.
I just found the discussion about protecting data to be so
interesting, given the way that we have seen data accessed in
other agencies and there doesn't seem to be that same kind of
passion or outcry--not necessarily specific to you, but just in
general.
And so I hope that, as we have the opportunity to protect
all patient data, we take the opportunity to do that----
Ms. Hageman. Uh-huh.
Ms. Underwood [continuing]. Whether it is our reproductive
data, as within this committee's jurisdiction, or otherwise.
I yield back.
Ms. Hageman. Thank you.
Mr. Harris. Thank you very much.
Ms. Hageman. Thank you.
Mr. Harris. And thank you.
Mr. Harris. Mr. Flood, you are recognized.
----------
Tuesday, April 29, 2025.
WITNESS
THE HON. MIKE FLOOD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
NEBRASKA
Mr. Flood. Chairman Harris, Ranking Member Bishop, members
of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to share
exciting updates about an important project to my district and
the next generation of United States agriculture.
Specifically, I would like to call your attention to a
project that should be very familiar to the subcommittee: the
United States Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research
Service National Center for Resilient and Regenerative
Precision Agriculture.
This co-located facility at the University of Nebraska-
Lincoln and an adjacent public-private ag-tech accelerator will
anchor a national network comprised of ARS and land-grant
universities committed to addressing one of the most critical
science gaps to advancing innovation in American agriculture.
I want to begin by thanking the subcommittee for their
support of this project in previous appropriations packages. I
was extremely pleased to see the subcommittee meet the full
funding ask and recognize the important need for investments in
cutting-edge agriculture.
Now we must keep the momentum to secure significant
construction funds in fiscal year 2026 in light of prior
continuing resolutions and as inflationary escalation costs
continue to rise.
Congress appropriated $11.2 million for planning and design
in fiscal year 2021, $20 million for construction in fiscal
year 2022, $25 million for construction in fiscal year 2024,
and an additional $16 million was included in fiscal year 2025.
The first phase of construction, which was slated to begin
in 2024, that is now building 15,000 square feet of greenhouse
and 10,000 square feet of headhouse space and will connect with
the existing Greenhouse Innovation Center.
The second phase of construction, which will commence when
Congress appropriates all funds, will go towards constructing a
120,000-square-foot, four-story laboratory and office building
on the Nebraska Innovation Campus in Lincoln, Nebraska.
ARS will utilize these new facilities for scientists and
staff in the two existing research units, on agroecosystem
management and on wheat, sorghum, and forage, and two new
research units, on water, climate, and resilience and on
precision production. Ultimately, USDA expects to double its
science and support staff presence in Lincoln at this new
complex.
Last May, the University of Nebraska hosted a
groundbreaking ceremony for phase one, which I enjoyed
attending. Members of the Nebraska congressional delegation
were there. University leadership, stakeholders--everybody was
there to support this facility.
Precision ag is a key piece of Nebraska's ag fabric, and it
makes sense that this project has found its home in the
Cornhuskers State. A January 2024 GAO report showed Nebraska is
at the forefront of utilization and adoption of precision-ag
technology and practices. And the report showed Nebraska is
second in the Nation in the use of precision-agriculture
practices by U.S. farms, with 55 percent of Nebraska producers
using ag tools.
I could go on and on and on about the benefits of this
program.
I want to thank the subcommittee for its past support. This
was started by my predecessor, Congressman Fortenberry. It was
very important to him. And by virtue of his efforts and
leadership on this, I wanted to continue this and see this
through.
And, with that, I thank you for the opportunity to present
to you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Harris. Thank you very much.
What is the total budget going to be for that second phase?
Like, how close are we to getting to the total before they
build the construction of it?
Mr. Flood. I think we are technically at $60 million now,
and we are on our way to $120 million. And then there are State
funds on top of that. So we are really $60 million away.
Mr. Harris. About $60 million.
And, last year, that $16 million that was included
obviously was deferred, I guess, because of the continuing
resolution. So that $60 million would include last year's--or,
no, it doesn't----
Mr. Flood. It would not include that. So we got $25 million
in fiscal year 2024.
Mr. Harris. Right. And $20 million in 2022.
Mr. Flood. And $11.2 in 2021.
Mr. Harris. Okay. So you would be about halfway there.
Mr. Flood. Right.
Mr. Harris. And what is the cost share with the other
funders that you indicated?
Mr. Flood. I believe the University of Nebraska and the
State government is in at $30 million.
Mr. Harris. Okay. So we are getting there.
All right. Well, thank you very much.
Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much. I appreciate your coming
in support of the project. I am familiar with it. I worked for
some time with Mr. Fortenberry to try to get it funded. It was
very important to him and to the area and to the industry, so
we certainly have been supportive of it.
I am hopeful that in the reconciliation process and as we
craft the budget that it will not be among those items that are
cut, because I think it was a worthwhile project, and I hope
that we can continue to fund it to completion.
Mr. Flood. Thank you, Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Harris. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Flood.
Mr. Bishop, do you have any closing remarks?
Mr. Bishop. Yes. I just want to thank Representatives
Hageman and Flood for testifying before the subcommittee today.
I appreciate the time that they took to come and share with us,
and we appreciate the information. It is vital as we craft our
bill.
So thank you very much.
Mr. Harris. Thank you.
And I want to thank everybody who attended today to tell us
more about the programs important to their State and their
district.
I will say that I know that we are going to get requests
for a lot of funding, and I wish more Members had come, as Mr.
Flood and Ms. Hageman have done, and, you know, informed the
committee as we make those decisions.
But it has certainly been helpful information. We will
certainly keep your comments and priorities in mind as we move
through the fiscal year 2026 appropriations process.
The subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 10:55 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
W I T N E S S E S
----------
Page
Flood, Hon. Mike................................................. 11
Prepared statement........................................... 13
Hageman, Hon. Harriet............................................ 2
Prepared statement........................................... 4
McCollum, Hon. Betty.............................................
Prepared statement........................................... 19
[all]