Lawmakers, USDA seek to combat New World screwworm along the southern border

Just a few hundred miles from our southern border, a flesh-eating parasite has been detected in Mexico, putting America's farmers and ranchers on watch. The New World screwworm is a parasitic fly that lays its eggs in the open wounds of livestock, primarily cattle and sheep, deer and other wildlife, and on rare occasions, humans and pets. Once hatched, the fly's larvae feed on tissue, leading to severe infection and often death. If this parasite were ever to reach the United States, our agricultural economy and supply chain would be in serious trouble.
That is not a hypothetical scenario. Flare-ups have occurred within our borders in the past, costing American producers hundreds of millions of dollars. Mrs. D., a Central Texas rancher, remembers all too well the devastation of the last major screwworm outbreak in the United States that took place during the 1960s. 'Every day from dawn to dusk, my husband would ride horseback to find animals affected by the screwworm. We worked tirelessly to ensure our livestock survived. We had to make sure our calves were born in the winter to stand a chance against the fly that caused the screwworm because the flies are not as prevalent in the cold weather.'
Although screwworms were eradicated from the U.S. in the 1960s using a sterilized fly technique, all the signs are there for a repeat scenario. As of March of this year, 369 confirmed cases had been reported in Mexico, creeping north from its confinement zone in Central America and towards the United States.
As the representative of the largest congressional district in Texas, I have heard repeatedly from my constituents that a reemergence of New World screwworm is their biggest concern. Texas tops the charts for beef production in the nation, and some of my district's counties have more sheep and goats than live human beings.
There is no doubt that a screwworm outbreak would be absolutely devastating to communities like mine. I am not alone in these concerns.
In March, 43 of my colleagues joined me in bipartisan outreach to the Agriculture Department to offer congressional support on screwworm eradication efforts. I also introduced the STOP Screwworms Act along with 31 of my House colleagues and Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas), Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.), Ben Ray Lujan (D-N.M.), and Martin Heinrich (D-N.M). This important legislation would establish a sterile fly production facility in the U.S. — a critical step in our fight to shore up our domestic infrastructure against this deadly parasite.
Fortunately, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins has been incredibly proactive on this issue. This week, I joined Rollins to announce the launch of an $8.5 million sterile New World screwworm fly dispersal facility in South Texas and a five-pronged plan to enhance the Agriculture Department's ability to detect, control and eliminate this pest. Per the Agriculture Department, the facility in South Texas is expected to be ready within six months.
President Trump and Rollins have made protecting America's agriculture industry a priority. Together, we will fight to codify executive branch wins into long-term legislative solutions.
Tony Gonzales represents Texas's 23rd District in the U.S. House of Representatives. He serves as the chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Conference and represents the largest congressional district in Texas, spanning over 800 miles of the southern border.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Boston Globe

2 hours ago

• Boston Globe

Trying to satisfy Trump, NATO is running into difficulties

In any case, his influence is certain to loom over the gathering. Advertisement It has already driven an effort by NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte to increase military spending by each of the alliance's 32 members to meet a figure suggested by Trump. He has demanded it be raised to 5 percent of each country's gross domestic product, up from the current level of 2 percent. Rutte has proposed widening the definition of military spending to help meet that objective. The new benchmark would include 3.5 percent of GDP on core military spending — weapons, capabilities, troops — and the rest on what NATO calls 'defense and security-related investment, including in infrastructure and resilience.' In the weeks since Rutte's idea gained steam, its details, and shortcomings, have become clearer, according to officials and experts. The timeline to increase spending may be different for everyone, and officials are confused about the requirements. Even if countries do allocate the sums, European and even American defense industries may not be able to absorb the money or deliver in a timely fashion. Advertisement And while NATO countries generally agree it is past time to spend more on security in Europe, where officials believe a militarized Russia might be tempted to test the alliance within years, some nations already struggle to reach the existing target on military spending. They are unlikely to meet Trump's demand soon, if ever. The discussion about Rutte's proposal, experts said, has devolved into a debate over spending billions of dollars to fund an ever-widening range of priorities. 'It is largely a shell game,' said Jeremy Shapiro, a former State Department official and now research director of the European Council on Foreign Relations. 'There is some reality there, because defense spending is increasing across Europe, but more because of Vladimir Putin than Donald Trump.' Trump first demanded the 5 percent figure two weeks before his inauguration, although his ambassador to NATO, Matt Whitaker, insisted recently that the United States was not 'driving the timeline' for allies to spend more on defense. 'The threats are driving the timeline,' he said. 'Europe keeps telling us that Russia is their biggest threat, and we agree, in the Euro-Atlantic it is. And so we need to make sure everybody's investing.' Initially, Trump's ambitions seemed both abstract and implausible: Only 23 NATO members were meeting their spending goals by the end of last year. But Rutte's proposal allows for some spending on what NATO calls 'military-adjacent' projects. In practical terms, that could include investments in advanced technology; rebuilding roads, bridges, and other infrastructure; civic defense; education; improved health services; and aid to Ukraine. Advertisement In effect, the Trump benchmark 'is both real and not real,' said Nathalie Tocci, director of Italy's Institute of International Affairs. 'The real thing is 3.5 percent, which has nothing to do with Trump and everything to do with NATO's getting what it judges it needs,' she said. 'The unreal part is the 1.5 percent, the PR move for Trump,' she said. 'Of course infrastructure is important, and diplomacy and education, so lump it all together for Trump. And if the magic figure of 5 percent ensures benign indifference rather than malign hostility, that's all to the good.' The proposal may have helped Rutte balance the president's desires with those of European leaders, but it has also created complications. Defense ministers meeting at NATO headquarters in Brussels this month appeared confused over how the money should be spent, and how soon, and over whether aid to Ukraine could count. 'We have to find a realistic compromise between what is necessary and what is possible, really, to spend,' said Germany's defense minister, Boris Pistorius. Luxembourg's defense minister, Yuriko Backes, was more blunt. 'It will be the capabilities that will keep us safe, not percentages,' she said. 'This is what should be driving our investments, not the other way around.' Luxembourg will reach the current spending threshold — which was set in 2014 to be accomplished in a decade — only this year. Allies are debating how to count the aid to Ukraine. The current plan is to consider it core military spending. But some of the countries nearest to Russia's borders do not want to dilute their domestic defense and want aid to Ukraine categorized as 'related investments.' Advertisement There is also uncertainty about when allies would be expected to meet the higher spending threshold. Rutte initially proposed 2032, but countries on NATO's eastern flank want it to happen sooner. NATO intelligence suggests that, without a credible military deterrent, Russia could mount an effective offensive against the alliance in five years after the Ukraine war ends. 'We don't have time even for seven years,' Defense Minister Hanno Pevkur of Estonia said recently. 'We have to show that we have everything we need to defend our countries.' This article originally appeared in

Chicago Tribune

2 hours ago

• Chicago Tribune

Some US restaurants and servers oppose President Trump's ‘no tax on tips' budget proposal

Some segments of the U.S. restaurant industry don't support President Donald Trump's proposal to eliminate federal taxes on tips, saying it would help too few people and obscure bigger issues in the way tipped workers are paid. The Independent Restaurant Coalition, which represents nearly 100,000 restaurant and bars, has appealed to Congress to reconsider the proposal, which is part of the president's spending bill. Even some workers who rely on tips say they oppose making them tax-deductible. 'I think there's a huge hole in this concept of 'no tax on tips' because a lot of restaurant workers aren't receiving tips in the first place,' said Elyanna Calle, a bartender in Austin, Texas, and president of the Restaurant Workers United union. 'It's not helping most kitchen workers, and oftentimes those are the people who are being paid the least.' For now, making tips tax-free appears to have broad support among lawmakers. Both Trump and his Democratic rival in last year's U.S. presidential election, former Vice President Kamala Harris, campaigned on the concept. The House included it in a tax cuts package approved last month. The bill would eliminate federal income taxes on tips for people working in jobs that have traditionally received them as long as they make less than $160,000 in 2025. The Senate Finance Committee passed a modified version on Monday. Senators capped deductions at $25,000 and want to phase them out for individuals whose income exceeds $150,000. Eligibility would be based on earnings as of Dec. 31, 2024. Both the House and Senate committee measures would apply through the 2028 tax year. The Finance Committee specified that 'cash tips' qualify but said the term applied to tips paid in cash, charged to credit cards or received from other employees under a tip-sharing arrangement. Wary of wading into politics, many restaurant chains contacted by The Associated Press about tax-free tips didn't respond or referred questions to the National Restaurant Association, including Waffle House, The Cheesecake Factory, First Watch and the parent companies of Olive Garden, Applebee's and Chili's. The National Restaurant Association, a trade organization that represents nearly 500,000 U.S. restaurants and bars, applauded the House's passage of Trump's spending bill and said it wants to see tax-free tips. The association estimates the measure would benefit more than 2 million servers and bartenders. But the U.S. restaurant industry has more than 12 million workers, including dishwashers and chefs, according to government data. The Independent Restaurant Coalition says the 'no tax on tips' proposal leaves out too many of those workers. The coalition wants Congress to eliminate taxes on service charges, which are being used to compensate employees at an increasing number of restaurants. Around 15% of U.S. restaurants add some form of service charge to customers' bills, according to the National Restaurant Association. George Skandalos, a pizza restaurant owner in Moscow, Idaho, was tired of seeing servers count out hundreds of dollars of tips at the end of the night while people in the kitchen scrubbed the floor on their hands and knees. So he started experimenting with different compensation models. Skandalos tried pooling servers' tips and distributing them but ran into rules preventing that. He tried raising his menu prices and explaining that a percentage of each order was going to employee compensation, but customers didn't understand and kept tipping. Skandalos now has a gratuity-free policy at his restaurant, Maialina. He charges a 20% service fee that is distributed to all employees and helps pay for benefits like paid vacation and parental leave. The vast majority of customers appreciate the effort, he said. Skandalos said 'no tax on tips' doesn't acknowledge restaurants like his that are trying to distribute pay more equally. He would like to see service charges exempted from taxes. 'This bill is a very good start in terms of trying to leave more money in people's pocketbooks, but now let's finish what we started and make it a great thing for the restaurant industry overall,' he said. But Ted Pappageorge, the secretary-treasurer of the Culinary Workers Union Local 226 in Las Vegas, said restaurants should just pay their kitchen workers more to compensate for servers earning tips. ''No tax on tips' is an opportunity for Republicans and Democrats to deliver something to working class folks,' he said. Pappageorge wants Congress to take up a separate bill introduced by Nevada Democrat Steven Horsford that would eliminate taxes on tips but also require restaurants to pay workers at least the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. In 43 states, restaurants are currently allowed to pay tipped workers as little as $2.13 per hour. Yolanda Garcia, a barista at Resorts World in Las Vegas and a member of the Culinary Workers Union, also supports Horsford's bill. Garcia said she makes $33,000 a year, including up to $600 per month in tips. Tips are never guaranteed, she said, but if they were tax-free, it would help make up for that uncertainty. 'It would help me get more groceries. Right now, the price of everything has gone up,' Garcia said. Calle, the Austin bartender and union leader, said she also benefits from tips, but they're inconsistent. She suspects tipping would decline if the tax-free provision passes, because customers will resent it. For Calle, the underlying problem that must be solved is low base pay. 'I think that if we continue to make the shift into relying on tips for people, it gives incentives for companies to not raise wages,' she said.

2 hours ago

Bombing Iran's underground Fordo nuclear plant might not be effective, one expert says

A U.S. attack on a key Iranian nuclear facility might not be effective, even if American military's massive bunker-buster bombs are used, a national security expert familiar with Iran's program told ABC News on Thursday. While the 30,000-pound bombs have been tested, they've never actually been used and the exact nature of the concrete and metal protecting the site located deep inside a mountain -- that the bombs would need to penetrate -- isn't fully known. Joe Cirincione, who has spent decades researching nuclear proliferation for Congress and other world leaders, told ABC News that while attacking Iran's nuclear enrichment program would cripple its nuclear weapons capability, it would not eliminate it. At the center of President Donald Trump's decision on whether to attack Iran is the Fordo nuclear enrichment facility in northwest Iran. It's said to be built 300 feet deep inside a mountain -- maybe more -- and reinforced with concrete, according to experts. The U.S. weapon touted as able to strike inside the Fordo facility the GBU-57 A/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator bomb, known as a "bunker buster." It's capable of penetrating 200 feet deep inside an underground target and then exploding, experts say. Cirincione said that using the untested weapon would not guarantee success. "Fordo is not an easy target. They made this very difficult for the United States to destroy," he said. "Even [the bunker buster] can not penetrate 300 feet of mountain and reinforced concrete. "You need to drop a bomb, that will dig a crater, and then another bomb in that crater and then another bomb, and then another," he said. "And then you will only damage that part of the facility." Cirincione also noted that even if there's some damage done, Iran's government has the knowledge, experience and, most important, enough enriched uranium and centrifuges in other locationsto move forward with relative ease. "You can't bomb that," he told ABC News. "You can slow it down, but they can pick up and start again fast and they know it." The International Atomic Energy Agency this week passed a resolution that stated Iran had breached its non-proliferation agreements and has been illegally stockpiling enriched uranium. "I've been there, it's half a mile underground," Rafael Grossi, the IAEA's director general, said about the Fordo plant, as reported by The New York Times. Days after the IAEA acted, Israel i forces attacked Iranian targets after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claimed the Iranian government could create a nuclear weapon "in a very short time." Iranian officials have dismissed claims by Israel that they are building a nuclear weapon. White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt told reporters Thursday that the president would make a decision about attacking Iran "in two weeks." Cirincione stressed that continued military strikes would not be a good option for Israel or the U.S. if the goal is an Iran without nuclear weapons. "Once you recognize there is no military solution to this problem, the military solutions can only be threats to Iran and the only answer is to get Iran to agree to roll back and end its capabilities," he said.