Tremendous progress continues to be made in the PRV eradication program. It will be important that we do not lose our drive as we close in on the finish line. We still have some issues that need our full attention.

Surveillance is a concern. We need to determine what is the most cost effective and adequate method of surveillance for states in the final stages of eradication and when they are free. There are concerns that slaughter surveillance is not necessarily the best way to conduct surveillance. This is especially the case when our identification methods for sows and boars are not adequate to obtain random samples. We are making progress, though, on improvements in our sow and boar identification methods with the development of the national premises identification system.

I serve on the budget committee for the Central Region. One question that has plagued me is the wide difference in requests for dollars to conduct slaughter surveillance in states with similar sized breeding herds. We need to determine what is the appropriate range of costs for slaughter surveillance. Also, a significant budget issue is how we are going to address the needs for less personnel in states that have cleaned up PRV. Our budget committee has tried to start sending signals when we think the numbers of personnel allocated to PRV work is not justified by the amount of infection remaining in the state. An unfortunate reality is that the states that do a good job cleaning up PRV are going to get less dollars in the future. States need to plan on this.

We hear that some states are not following through with herd cleanup plans. Some states are developing advisory panels to work with producers that are not making sufficient progress. I think states need to develop an aggressive plan on how they are going to deal with the last few infected herds in their state.

Interstate movement of pigs continues to be a critical issue. Some states are not recognizing Program Standards. Adjoining states need to continue to work together to address producer concerns.

We need to hold more meetings for state and federal animal health personnel and producers in the model of the Great Lakes Fieldforce Meeting held last year. We need to continue to find ways to educate and motivate animal health personnel and producers.

With regard to FY 1996 funding, Congress has allocated $8.5 million which is the same as last year. Maintaining this level of funding was a significant achievement with the current Washington, D.C. climate. In the future, APHIS will need to request what is actually needed to run the program as it is increasingly difficult to justify to Congress why more should be allocated than APHIS has requested. APHIS requested $7.023 for FY 1996 for pseudorabies.

Another issue that we need to address is what is a feral pig or feral herd. This has much more significance as a state reaches Stage IV or V and a positive pig or herd is detected that could be classified as feral or domestic. It is appropriate to now develop a protocol for dealing with these situations.

We understand that Canada is moving forward with regulations to allow the shipment of U.S. slaughter hogs from Stages IV and V. This should help provide further incentive for continued movement through the program. It also makes it imperative that we have a good surveillance program to detect any infection in these states.

In conclusion, on behalf of NPPC, I want to thank you for your efforts in this program. We still are committed to the ten year eradication program and we all need to step up our efforts to reach this goal. It is in sight.