[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3614-3615]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                   USDA ANIMAL IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM

  Mr. JOHANNS. I rise today to discuss the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture's Animal Identification System. Over the past several 
years, USDA has administered a system called the National Animal 
Identification System, NAIS.
  The ultimate goal of the system was to keep track of animal movements 
so that we could trace back animals in the event of a disease outbreak. 
The first step under animal ID was to register farms where animals are 
housed, also known as premises, and that registration was to occur in a 
database.
  After registering a premise, a producer could identify individual 
animals or groups of animals that moved to or from a premise, each 
given an individual ID number. This system worked for those who wanted 
to use it. But no one was forced to participate. In other words, it was 
a voluntary system.
  If producers wanted to participate in the program so they could keep 
track of an animal's movements or because a trading partner might be 
more inclined to buy their product, or for any reason that worked well 
with their operation, then it was there for them. It was at their 
disposal.
  But as long as NAIS was in existence, it was a voluntary program. 
Now, recently, on February 5, 2010, USDA announced it was doing away 
with that and developing a new framework for animal disease 
traceability in the United States.
  It caught my attention as a former Secretary of Agriculture. The 
Obama administration completed a series of listening sessions held by 
USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service--we refer to them as 
APHIS--and those were done just last year.
  Having held farm bill forums across the country as the Secretary of 
Agriculture, I applaud any effort to hear directly from farmers and 
ranchers. I applaud USDA for seeking input on NAIS. I was very 
appreciative that, at my request, one of those animal ID listening 
sessions was, in fact, held in my own home State of Nebraska.
  But I must admit, after the listening sessions I was very surprised 
at the new framework that the USDA has developed. USDA says the new 
program is not a mandatory program except for animals that travel to a 
different State from where they were born.
  Think about that. With that little caveat, that basically means the 
program is a mandatory program for a whole lot of livestock in the 
United States. You see, anybody who has any farm background or 
agricultural experience will tell you that the vast majority of animals 
in this country move to a different State in their lifetime.
  It is just simply a fact. Additionally, the program is mandatory not 
only for premise registration but for the actual tracking of the 
animal. Here is the real kicker. State governments will be tasked with 
keeping track of the livestock under the new system.
  It is almost like this administration realized how much opposition 
there was to a mandatory system--and, believe me, there is--and decided 
to hand the hot potato to the States. But in doing that, they said, 
thou shalt do it but keep the headache off our desks.
  States are genuinely and rightfully concerned about this new program 
potentially being dumped on them. I am already hearing from officials 
and producers in my home State, and they are enormously concerned by 
this proposal. Some groups are even urging the Nebraska Department of 
Agriculture, which would be tasked with administering the program, to 
refuse to participate. And, believe me, this is not the last State that 
will weigh in on this very controversial proposal.
  Later this week, there is a meeting of State departments of 
agriculture, State veterinarians, and other interested parties to 
further examine this issue. That is why I am on the Senate floor. I am 
going to be very anxious to hear their input and to hear the outcome of 
that meeting because there is great concern in farm country for this 
proposal. My hope is that conference participants can get some answers 
to some basic questions.
  Consider this: Let's say a Nebraska farmer buys a Nebraska calf with 
no tracking number and puts it out in a Nebraska pasture. So that is in 
state. That is pretty clear. No need to comply.
  Sometime later, after that calf has gained some weight, it is then 
taken to the auction barn, the sale barn. At this point, in the sale 
barn, there are multiple buyers from all over the country typically. 
There could be buyers from Nebraska and Kansas, Iowa, and other States. 
They are all in the arena to bid on their calves.
  But apparently only buyers from Nebraska could make bids even though 
other buyers from other States might offer more money. Let's say by 
chance a Nebraska feedlot is the highest bidder and buys the calf, 
still in state, can feed that calf out--still no need to comply with 
the animal ID program. But now, some months later, the steer is ready 
to go to the packing plant, but the plant is on the other side of the 
river in another State, and they will pay more than a plant instate for 
that animal. Wait a second. Can the feedlot owner sell to the Iowa meat 
processor? Apparently not because the two owners prior to him chose to 
not participate in the program.
  The bottom line: Many livestock auctions attract bidders from in 
state and States all over the country. So one can assume all animals 
sold through an auction barn will be required to have animal ID. For 
those who have been to

[[Page 3615]]

these sales, can you imagine literally the auctioneer stopping the sale 
and saying: These animals are not registered; only Nebraska purchasers 
can buy the animals. If they were not ID'd, auctioneers would literally 
have to stop the bidding and announce where the potential seller 
resides for each animal without a tracking number. Then many of the 
buyers must sit on the sidelines, visit the bathroom, go to the vending 
machine, anything but bid on their calf. Can you imagine. It just 
doesn't make any sense. What will be the viability of the cattle 
operations in this country for that sale barn? What about the rancher 
who sells some of his cattle in state and some of it goes to facilities 
in other States? Will that person be required to tag some of the 
animals in the feedlot but not others? He or she is going to spend more 
time trying to figure out how to comply with the USDA program than he 
or she will spend ranching. Producers are basically going to be forced 
to fully participate in the program. I think the USDA knows it. If a 
potential buyer is from another State, there can be no deal unless the 
animal has the tracking number.
  This looks like a backdoor mandate that is being packaged as 
something else. Worse yet, the package is being delivered and dropped 
on the doorstep of our States. Let's face facts. This so-called new 
animal ID plan is a mandatory system, when it was promoted as a 
voluntary one. In my judgment, to be blunt, this is a wolf in sheep's 
clothing, but America's farmers and ranchers are not going to be 
fooled. They know better than anyone that the vast majority of 
agricultural commerce occurs across State lines and even country to 
country. They deserve better.
  Let me be clear. I did not come here to be critical of the fact that 
USDA is considering new approaches. In fact, I acknowledge that when I 
was the Secretary, I called a timeout to fully understand the 
complexities of the animal ID and to hear from producers. I openly 
said: I am considering making this a mandatory program. I thought a 
mandatory approach might be necessary, and we listened and studied it 
very closely.
  Then we went to the countryside. We listened to farmers and ranchers. 
What we heard overwhelmingly is: Mike, do not make this a mandatory 
program. We realized that producers already comply with a laundry list 
of Federal regulations. In this administration, it grows by the day. 
They take numerous steps to ensure the safety of their animals. That is 
their livelihood. Mandating an animal identification system would have 
been one more costly burden dictated on the rancher by the Federal 
Government.
  I appeal to my friend Secretary Vilsack. We were Governors together. 
I know where you are coming from. I went down that road too. I can tell 
you, Mr. Secretary, it is a dead end. On one hand, USDA has 
acknowledged the broad and deep opposition in the countryside when the 
administration seemed to say: We are going to go forward anyway. Our 
producers themselves have spent years trying to understand what NAIS is 
about. There is no repackaging that will convince them another Federal 
mandate is a good idea. Does this administration think States will 
embrace this hot potato with all the costs and the unanswered questions 
that go with it? I don't see it. The old NAIS system was not perfect. 
We always acknowledged that. This is hugely complicated. But calling it 
voluntary and then leaving producers no real choice is far from 
perfect, and, most importantly, it is not a solution.
  I urge the USDA to reconsider.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burris). The Senator from Louisiana is 
recognized.

                          ____________________