[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 2 (Wednesday, January 21, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S106-S107]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   BIOMETRICS--THE TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCEMENT IN ANIMAL IDENTIFICATION

  Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, it has been brought to my attention that 
the Department of Agriculture has put for comment their rules and 
regulations on animal identification, in particular beef. It is not 
unusual that by the time Federal agencies in today's environment get 
around to issuing their rules and regulations, or by the time Congress 
passes legislation, our technology has moved so quickly that those 
provisions become outdated. I am concerned this could be happening with 
the Department of Agriculture promulgating rules on the radio frequency 
identification, RFID, tag in United States animal identification. It 
has an internal code structure that identifies a specific bovine, but 
if something happens to the tag, there is no way of re-establishing the 
animal's identification. That is, there is no way of re-establishing 
the animal's identification unless another form of permanent 
identification is obtained. That is why it is so important to discuss 
the use of biometrics in animal verification, and more specifically, to 
fully explore the use of retinal scanning for identification purposes.
  It is my understanding that the rules and regulations may exclude the 
use of retinal scanning because the rules that the USDA is considering 
do not address or allow the use of a ``secure permanent identifier,'' 
or at the least, they could be interpreted to discourage its use. I 
have personally viewed such retinal scanning technology and believe 
that it can be a practical way to identify individual animals, or lots 
of animals, and that this technology should not be put at a 
disadvantage because of a policy position by the Department of 
Agriculture.
  With the December 23 discovery of a cow infected with bovine 
spongiform encephalopathy, BSE, the United States faced a real-life 
test of our animal identification and tracking system. Identification 
of livestock is very advanced in the United States, but even with our 
system, it took days to track that BSE-infected cow to Canada.
  As part of our efforts to confront, control and eliminate the risk of 
BSE and to address future animal health emergencies, we should consider 
putting into place systems that can easily and rapidly identify an 
animal and tell us where it has been. It must be able to tell us what 
animals it has been in contact with and where those contacts are now. 
The system should do this rapidly, securely and without error.
  I commend the efforts of the USDA and industry who have been working 
together for some time to design a national animal identification plan. 
During the intervening period, new technologies have continued to 
emerge. As the USDA looks at implementing a national animal 
identification plan, it is important that we utilize the best of 
today's technologies. For instance, a primary objective of this plan, 
as proposed, is to trace any animal within 48 hours. With the 
technology available to us in this country, we can be looking at 
systems that can locate animals in minutes--not hours--with great 
accuracy.
  To assure the American public and our export customers that we have 
not lost track of any animals, the U.S. animal identification plan 
should allow use of a secure, tamper-resistant image of the animal's 
retinal vascular pattern that is more unique than a human fingerprint. 
Retinal scanning identifies the animal, not the identifier. The 
majority of the other animal identification systems work on the basis 
of adding an identifier to the animal, such as a visual or electronic 
marker or tag and then recording that identifier. Identifiers like this 
can be lost or changed and are not secure. Some estimates put livestock 
tag loss in the range of 5 to 8 percent--an unacceptable scenario when 
considering the ramifications that this could mean to the beef 
industry.
  I hope that the national animal identification plan does not preclude 
the use of new technologies introduced since the plan's inception, 
especially when these technologies exceed the proposed plan's 
performance objectives. Several U.S. companies are not waiting for the 
USDA, but are rapidly installing retinal imaging technology in their 
own plans to significantly improve their ability to track livestock. 
These companies should not be forced to also adopt a poorer performing 
technology because the plan mandates a certain, specific technology.
  It is critical that the plan's systems be audited for performance and 
reliability to verify that they are actually working. We must be able 
to measure and document how many animals are misidentified or lost. 
Since retinal scanning technology uses secure, tamper-resistant, 
retinal patterns, it is currently the only available method against 
which to verify the performance of any tag-based system.
  We should be using the most current technology available--the Global 
Positioning System, GPS. By linking the Global Positioning System to a 
secure identifier such as a retinal scan, the time, date, and location 
of the animal can be captured when the eye is scanned, proving beyond a 
doubt that ``this animal was at this place at this time.'' Furthermore, 
the use of GPS coordinates provides USDA with the means to audit and 
verify the accuracy of any identification numbering system.
  The United States has the most competitive livestock sector in the 
world. But we are at risk of falling behind countries in Europe, South 
America, as well as Australia and New Zealand, nations that are all 
exploring more modern technologies for identifying and tracking 
livestock. Not only can the U.S. take a leadership role in this area, 
we can take identification and traceability ``off the table'' as a 
possible trade barrier by introducing technologies that leapfrog 
existing country requirements.
  I would like to close by reminding my colleagues that it is only when 
you combine identity with location that you get traceability. And in 
order to build a secure, tamper-resistant system to trace livestock, 
you must begin with a secure, tamper-resistant identifier. I believe we 
have the technology to do this in a practical, economically feasible 
way that will allow United States producers to meet the concerns 
expressed by our trading partners when

[[Page S107]]

managing diseases like mad cow disease. I believe retinal scanning 
combined with the GPS system can be the most practical option if the 
policy of this country is to require an identification system of each 
animal or even for tracing batches of live animals because it is 
technology that can be easily used in the field and is very accurate, 
reliable, and precise.

                          ____________________