Feral Swine Eradication Act
Download PDFSponsored by
Sen. Cornyn, John [R-TX]
ID: C001056
Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Invalid Date
Introduced
đź“Ť Current Status
Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.
Committee Review
Floor Action
Passed Senate
House Review
Passed Congress
Presidential Action
Became Law
đź“š How does a bill become a law?
1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.
2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.
3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.
4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.
5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.
6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.
7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!
Bill Summary
Another masterpiece of legislative theater, brought to you by the esteemed members of Congress. The Feral Swine Eradication Act (S 1207) - because what's more pressing than saving America from the scourge of wild pigs?
**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill reauthorizes and expands the feral swine eradication and control pilot program, which was established in 2018. The main objective is to eradicate feral swine populations that threaten agriculture, native ecosystems, and human or animal health. Or so they claim.
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill makes several changes to the existing law:
* Removes the "pilot" designation from the program, because who needs pilot programs when you can just throw money at a problem? * Expands the definition of "eligible areas" to include any area where feral swine are deemed a threat, which is code for "anywhere we want to spend money." * Increases funding for the program by $75 million over five years, because what's a few tens of millions between friends? * Requires the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to continue monitoring areas where feral swine have been eradicated for a year after removal. Because we all know how well government agencies do with follow-up.
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects:
* Farmers and ranchers who claim feral swine are destroying their livelihoods. * Environmental groups who want to protect native ecosystems from these pesky pigs. * Government agencies (APHIS, NRCS) that get to spend more money on a problem they've been unable to solve for years.
**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a classic case of "throwing good money after bad." Feral swine populations are a symptom of larger issues like habitat destruction, climate change, and poor land management. By focusing solely on eradication, Congress is ignoring the root causes of the problem.
The real beneficiaries of this bill will be:
* Lobbyists for agricultural interests who get to line their pockets with taxpayer dollars. * Politicians who can claim they're "doing something" about a perceived problem without actually addressing it. * Bureaucrats at APHIS and NRCS who get to expand their budgets and staff.
Meanwhile, the American public will be left footing the bill for this boondoggle. So, let's all just pretend that this bill is going to solve the feral swine problem, shall we?
Related Topics
đź’° Campaign Finance Network
Sen. Cornyn, John [R-TX]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No PAC contributions found
No organization contributions found
No committee contributions found
Donor Network - Sen. Cornyn, John [R-TX]
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 21 nodes and 21 connections
Total contributions: $440,480
Top Donors - Sen. Cornyn, John [R-TX]
Showing top 20 donors by contribution amount
Project 2025 Policy Matches
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document. Higher similarity scores indicate stronger thematic connections.
Introduction
— 534 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Delist the grizzly bear in the Greater Yellowstone and Northern Continental Divide Ecosystems and defend to the Supreme Court of the United States the agency’s fact-based decision to do so.84 l Delist the gray wolf in the lower 48 states in light of its full recovery under the ESA.85 l Cede to western states jurisdiction over the greater sage-grouse, recognizing the on-the-ground expertise of states and preventing use of the sage-grouse to interfere with public access to public land and economic activity. l Direct the Fish and Wildlife Service to end its abuse of Section 10(j) of the ESA by re-introducing so-called “experiment species” populations into areas that no longer qualify as habitat and lie outside the historic ranges of those species, which brings with it the full weight of the ESA in areas previously without federal government oversight.86 l Direct the Fish and Wildlife Service to design and implement an impartial conservation triage program by prioritizing the allocation of limited resources to maximize conservation returns, relative to the conservation goals, under a constrained budget.87 l Direct the Fish and Wildlife Service to make all data used in ESA decisions available to the public, with limited or no exceptions, to fulfill the public’s right to know and to prevent the agency’s previous opaque decision-making. l Abolish the Biological Resources Division of the U.S. Geological Survey and obtain necessary scientific research about species of concern from universities via competitive requests for proposals. l Direct the Fish and Wildlife Service to: (1) design and implement an Endangered Species Act program that ensures independent decision- making by ending reliance on so-called species specialists who have obvious self-interest, ideological bias, and land-use agendas; and (2) ensure conformity with the Information Quality Act.88 Office of Surface Mining. The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) was created by the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA)89 to administer programs for controlling the impacts of surface coal mining operations. Although the coal industry is contracting, coal constitutes — 535 — Department of the Interior 20 percent of the nation’s electricity and is a mainstay of many regional economies. The following actions should ensure OSM’s ability to perform its mission while com- plying with SMCRA and without interfering with the production of high-quality American coal: l Relocate the OSM Reclamation and Enforcement headquarters to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, to recognize that the agency is field-driven and should be headquartered in the coal field.90 l Reduce the number of field coal-reclamation inspectors to recognize the industry is smaller. l Reissue Trump’s Schedule F executive order to permit discharge of nonperforming employees.91 l Permit coal company employees to benefit from the OSM Training Program, which is currently restricted to state and federal employees. l Revise the Applicant Violator System, the nationwide database for the federal and state programs, to permit federal and state regulators to consider extenuating circumstances. l Maintain the current “Ten-Day Notice” rule, which requires OSM to work with state regulators in determining if a SMCRA violation has taken place in recognition of the fact that a coal mining state with primacy has the lead in implementing state and federal law. l Preserve Directive INE-26, which relates to approximate original contour, a critical factor in permitting efficient and environmentally sound surface mining, especially in Appalachia.92 Western Water Issues. The American West, from the Great Plains to the Cas- cades Range, is arid, as recognized by John Wesley Powell during his famous trip across a large part of its length. Pursuant to an Executive Order signed by President Trump, and consistent with its authority along with other federal agencies, DOI’s Bureau of Reclamation must take the following actions: l Develop additional storage capacity across the arid west, including by: 1. Updating dam water control manuals for existing facilities during routine operations; and
Introduction
— 305 — Department of Agriculture and to require instead that each farm (as a function of eligibility) must have created a general best practices plan. Such a plan could be approved by the local county Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD). The local SWCD commissioners are elected by their peers in each respective county and are better suited than the NRCS to provide guidance for farm operations in their respective jurisdictions. At a minimum, a new Administration should support legislation to divest more power to the states (and possibly local SWCDs) regarding erodible land and wetlands conservation.98 l Reform easements. The new Administration should, to the extent authorized by law, limit the use of permanent easements and collaborate with lawmakers to prohibit the USDA from creating new permanent easements.99 Other Major Issues and Specific Recommendations. Although the following issues have not been listed as “priority,” these issues are still extremely important, and the next Administration should address them. Only meat and poultry from federally inspected facilities can be sold in inter- state commerce.100 Even meat and poultry from USDA-approved state-inspected facilities may only be sold in intrastate commerce, with limited exceptions.101 This is despite the fact that states with USDA-approved inspection programs must meet and enforce requirements that are “at least equal to” those imposed under the Federal Meat and Poultry Products Inspection Acts and the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act of 1978.102 This is an unnecessary regulatory barrier that makes it difficult to get meat and poultry into interstate commerce to create more options for consumers and farmers. Legislation entitled the New Mar- kets for State-Inspected Meat and Poultry Act of 2021 would help to remove this obstacle.103 The next Administration should: l Promote legislation that would allow state-inspected meat to be sold in interstate commerce. These barriers to the sale of meat and poultry from USDA-approved state-inspected facilities should be removed. Eliminate or Reform Marketing Orders and Checkoff Programs. Mar- keting orders and checkoff programs for agricultural commodities are similar in many ways. They both allow private actors within an industry to collaborate with the federal government to compel other competitors within an industry to fund the respective marketing order or checkoff program. There are currently 22 checkoff
Introduction
— 305 — Department of Agriculture and to require instead that each farm (as a function of eligibility) must have created a general best practices plan. Such a plan could be approved by the local county Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD). The local SWCD commissioners are elected by their peers in each respective county and are better suited than the NRCS to provide guidance for farm operations in their respective jurisdictions. At a minimum, a new Administration should support legislation to divest more power to the states (and possibly local SWCDs) regarding erodible land and wetlands conservation.98 l Reform easements. The new Administration should, to the extent authorized by law, limit the use of permanent easements and collaborate with lawmakers to prohibit the USDA from creating new permanent easements.99 Other Major Issues and Specific Recommendations. Although the following issues have not been listed as “priority,” these issues are still extremely important, and the next Administration should address them. Only meat and poultry from federally inspected facilities can be sold in inter- state commerce.100 Even meat and poultry from USDA-approved state-inspected facilities may only be sold in intrastate commerce, with limited exceptions.101 This is despite the fact that states with USDA-approved inspection programs must meet and enforce requirements that are “at least equal to” those imposed under the Federal Meat and Poultry Products Inspection Acts and the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act of 1978.102 This is an unnecessary regulatory barrier that makes it difficult to get meat and poultry into interstate commerce to create more options for consumers and farmers. Legislation entitled the New Mar- kets for State-Inspected Meat and Poultry Act of 2021 would help to remove this obstacle.103 The next Administration should: l Promote legislation that would allow state-inspected meat to be sold in interstate commerce. These barriers to the sale of meat and poultry from USDA-approved state-inspected facilities should be removed. Eliminate or Reform Marketing Orders and Checkoff Programs. Mar- keting orders and checkoff programs for agricultural commodities are similar in many ways. They both allow private actors within an industry to collaborate with the federal government to compel other competitors within an industry to fund the respective marketing order or checkoff program. There are currently 22 checkoff — 306 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise programs,104 and they focus on research and promotion of commodities such as beef and eggs. Marketing orders cover research and promotion, but also cover issues such as quality regulations and volume controls. The latter issue, volume controls, is a means to restrict supply, which drives up prices for consumers. Fortunately, there are few active volume controls.105 Marketing orders and checkoff programs are some of the most egregious pro- grams run by the USDA. They are, in effect, a tax—a means to compel speech—and government-blessed cartels. Instead of getting private cooperation, they are tools for industry actors to work with government to force cooperation. The next Administration should: l Reduce the number and scope of marketing orders and checkoff programs. The USDA should reject any new requests for marketing orders and checkoff programs to the extent authorized by law and eliminate existing programs when possible. While the programs work differently, there are often petition processes and other ways that make it difficult for affected parties to get rid of the marketing orders and checkoff programs,106 and the USDA itself may not even be required to honor requests to terminate a program.107 The USDA should make the process easier. Further, the USDA should reject any effort to bring back volume controls to limit supplies of commodities. l Work with Congress to eliminate marketing orders and checkoff programs. These programs should be eliminated, and if industry actors want to collaborate, they should do so through private means, not using the government to compel cooperation. l Promote legislation that would require regular votes. There should be regular voting for parties subject to checkoff programs and marketing orders. For example, the voting should occur at least every five years, to determine whether a marketing order or checkoff program should continue. The USDA should be required to honor the results of such a vote. Through regular voting, parties can demonstrate their support for a marketing order or checkoff program and ensure that those administering them will be held accountable. Focus on Trade Policy, Not Trade Promotion. The USDA’s Foreign Agri- cultural Service (FAS) covers numerous issues, including “trade policy,” which is a reference to removing trade barriers, among other things, to ensure an envi- ronment conducive to trade.108 It also covers trade promotion.109 This includes programs like the Market Access Program110 that subsidizes trade associations,
Showing 3 of 5 policy matches
About These Correlations
Policy matches are calculated using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text. A score of 60% or higher indicates meaningful thematic overlap. This does not imply direct causation or intent, but highlights areas where legislation aligns with Project 2025 policy objectives.