U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

92–570 PDF 2004

S. HRG. 108–606

DEVELOPMENT OF A NATIONAL ANIMAL

IDENTIFICATION PLAN

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MARKETING, INSPECTION, AND 

PRODUCT PROMOTION

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, 

NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MARCH 4, 2004

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.agriculture.senate.gov 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi, Chairman 

RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky 

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas 

PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois 

SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia 

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota 

MICHEAL D. CRAPO, Idaho 

JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri 

ELIZABETH DOLE, North Carolina 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

TOM HARKIN, Iowa 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

KENT CONRAD, North Dakota 

THOMAS A. DASCHLE, South Dakota 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas 

ZELL MILLER, Georgia 

DEBBIE A. STABENOW, Michigan 

E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska 

MARK DAYTON, Minnesota

HUNT SHIPMAN, Majority Staff Director 

DAVID L. JOHNSON, Majority Chief Counsel 

LANCE KOTSCHWAR, Majority General Counsel 

ROBERT E. STURM, Chief Clerk 

MARK HALVERSON, Minority Staff Director 

(II) 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

HEARING(S):

Development of a National Animal Identification Plan ....................................... 01

Thursday, March 4, 2004

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY SENATORS 

Talent, Hon. James, a U.S. Senator from Missouri, Chairman, Subcommittee 

on Marketing, Inspection, and Product Production ........................................... 01

Harkin, Hon. Tom, a U.S. Senator from Iowa, Ranking Member, Committee 

on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry ............................................................. 07

Baucus, Hon. Max, a U.S. Senator from Montana ................................................ 08

Nelson, Hon. Ben, a U.S. Senator from Nebraska ................................................ 02

WITNESSES 

Hawks, Hon. Bill, Under Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Marketing 

and Regulatory Programs, Washington, DC ...................................................... 04

John, Mike, Vice President, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, Columbia, 

Missouri ................................................................................................................ 29

Lehfeldt, Bob, American Sheep Industry Association, Lavina, Montana ........... 34

Marsh, Bret, First Vice President, U.S. Animal Health Association,

Indianapolis, Indiana ........................................................................................... 16

Ostberg, Ronald, Montana Farmers Union Member, Scobey, Montana .............. 35

Philippi, Joy, National Pork Producers Council, Bruning, Nebraska ................. 31

Schmitz-Hsu, Fritz, Former CEO, Tierverkehrsdatenbank AG, Switzerland .... 21

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Talent, Hon. James .................................................................................................. 44

Hawks, Hon. Bill .............................................................................................. 49

John, Mike ........................................................................................................ 77

Lehfeldt, Bob ..................................................................................................... 93

Marsh, Bret ....................................................................................................... 67

Nelson, Hon. Ben .............................................................................................. 48

Ostberg, Ronald ................................................................................................ 96

Philippi, Joy ...................................................................................................... 83

Schmitz-Hsu, Fritz ........................................................................................... 71

DOCUMENT(S) SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

Roberts, Hon. Pat ............................................................................................. 100

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

Harkin, Hon. Tom .................................................................................................... 102

(1)

DEVELOPMENT OF A NATIONAL ANIMAL 

IDENTIFICATION PLAN 

THURSDAY, MARCH 4, 2004

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON MARKETING, INSPECTION, AND PRODUCT

PROMOTION, OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION AND FORESTRY, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:05 p.m. in room 

SH–216, Hart Senate Office Building, Hon. James Talent, [Chairman of the Subcommittee], presiding. 

Present: Senators Talent, Harkin, Baucus, and Nelson. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES TALENT, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

MISSOURI, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON MARKETING,

INSPECTION, AND PRODUCT PROMOTION, COMMITTEE ON 

AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY 

Senator TALENT. All right; we will convene the subcommittee 

hearing. 

I want to thank everyone for coming to the hearing to discuss 

this important subject, the development of a national identification 

program. I do not need to tell people in this room how important 

the issue is. I do want to start by saying the United States has the 

safest food supply in the world. I have said that many times before 

and will continue to say it on occasions like this. It is still true 

today. 

A national animal identification plan is not a new idea; in fact, 

over the last few years over 75 livestock-oriented organizations 

have been working on a framework for a national system. The finding of the imported dairy cow with BSE on December 23 has accelerated the consideration of such a system. 

Shortly after the announcement of that, Secretary Veneman testified before the full Committee that she was committed to developing a national program. Additionally she told the Committee that 

USDA had sufficient statutory authority to establish a mandatory 

or voluntary national ID plan through the Animal Health Protection Act. I am pleased with her and the Department’s timely response and attention to this issue. 

We have assembled a great panel of experts today. Each one has 

an interesting perspective on this issue as well as a depth of knowledge on the animal industry in general. I look forward to hearing 

from each of them. I believe, and I do not want to put words in 

their mouths, but I believe each witness is going to agree that a 

reliable national ID system in the United States is not something 

2

that is going to happen overnight. You cannot turn on a national 

animal ID program like a switch. 

Owing to the large number of animals and diverse production 

systems in the United States, a national identification plan will not 

be simple to develop, and successful implementation of an ID system will require significant resources in both time and money. As 

an example, there are 68,000 cattlemen in Missouri. We are proud 

of each and every one of them. Each of these producers will need 

a premise identification number in an ID system, not to mention 

the sale barns, packing plants and veterinarians. 

Distributing a premise identification number to each of these 

producers will take several weeks or more, and that is just Missouri. There are 1.2 million cattlemen in the United States, which 

means that we are faced with a major task in developing and implementing a national ID system. 

We need program that quickly traces animals backward and forward but is not costly or burdensome to producers regardless of 

whether it is a small herd of 30 animals on 80 acres in Missouri 

or a herd of 1,000 with a grazing allotment in the West. Right now, 

the United States has an opportunity to build a plan that will 

strengthen our animal health capabilities as well as consumer confidence if we do it right. 

I am pleased that the Secretary considers this an important subject and believe she has the authority she needs to implement it. 

I have spent some time working on this issue with producers in 

Missouri, and they recognize the need for a national animal ID program as it relates to animal health, but they still have very valid 

concerns and questions regarding privacy, cost and impact on the 

way animals are marketed in the United States. I hope we can address some of these concerns today. 

We are going to start with the Undersecretary for Marketing and 

Regulatory Programs, Bill Hawks, who has been a frequent witness 

before the committee. 

It is great to have you with us. Not only does Secretary Hawks 

have responsibility for APHIS, the agency which will be involved 

with a national ID program, but he has also worked in the cattle 

business, and he knows first hand how an ID program would impact our farmers and ranchers. 

I also want to mention the piece of good news and congratulate 

the Secretary for his good work in the negotiations with Mexico. I 

am pleased to hear they are reopening the border. That is great 

news for the producers, and I am hopeful that our other trading 

partners will soon follow suit. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Talent can be found in the 

appendix on page 44.] 

I want to recognize Senator Nelson for an opening statement and 

also recognize his great work on this issue. 

Senator Nelson. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BEN NELSON, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

NEBRASKA 

Senator NELSON. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and 

I thank you for holding this very important hearing. I look forward 

to the panels’ comments. Unfortunately I am going to take leave 

3

of time for a minute and co-chair a Personnel Committee of the 

Senate Armed Services Committee hearing. I have perfected a lot 

of things but being in two places at once is not one of them yet. 

I am optimistic. 

Senator TALENT. Senator, there will probably be a 30-second ad 

in your next campaign complaining that you have not yet figured 

out how to be in two places at one time. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator NELSON. Well, thank you and thank the panel for coming to the Subcommittee today to offer your views on a national 

animal identification program, and because of the timeliness of this 

issue, I appreciate your collective commitment to appear before us 

today. 

Work on a national animal ID program has been progressing 

through its early stages of development for the last several years, 

with the issue being thrust forth in the public radar due to the first 

detection of BSE in the United States last December. Although I 

wish we were addressing this matter under different circumstances, I do believe it is critical that we use the momentum 

for change generated by the BSE case to move forward in working 

through the various concerns surrounding an animal ID program 

with one goal in mind: full implementation of a quality program at 

the earliest possible date. 

Let me emphasize that I do not want to cut corners, because that 

will only lead to problems down the road. As our producers and 

ranchers languish under closed export markets, there is a costly 

lesson to be learned. Therefore, we must move without delay to create a program that will play a contributing role in improving food 

safety and animal health while at the same time providing a valuable tool in protecting the livestock industry from foreign animal 

disease outbreaks. 

Today, I will be particularly interested in comments from our 

panelists on three topics. First, I would like to know the panelists’ 

views on where we will find the funding for this program. USAIP 

has estimated that once the ID program is fully in place, costs 

could approach $122 million annually, with ID tags accounting for 

nearly $100 million of that amount. The National Farm Animal 

Identification and Records Program, FAIR, and another USDAfunded ID pilot program estimates that its program could cost $540 

million over a 5-year period. 

Currently, USDA has $33 million in the fiscal year 2005 budget 

to accelerate development of an animal ID system. This is only a 

fraction of the total cost. In order to alleviate the concerns of producers, especially smaller producers, that they will be majority of 

the development and annual management costs of the program, we 

have to find an adequate cost share balance between the livestock 

industry and the public. 

Second, as you know, producers are concerned about public scrutiny and Government intrusion of their records. In general, there 

is a strong support for a program where only the appropriate state 

and Federal officials would have access to the animal ID information through the performance of their duties, with ample safeguards to protect that information from any damaging effects 

caused by public disclosure. 

4

Therefore I am interested in the panelists’ views on the best way 

to protect private and proprietary information with a national animal ID system but also in the context of the public’s right in many 

cases and always its desire to know. Finally I believe that in conjunction with the implementation of an animal ID program, we 

should restore the original September 2, 2004, deadline for mandatory country-of-origin labeling as directed in the Farm Bill. As you 

move farther away from the Beltway, the support of COOL grows 

like a wildfire on the prairie, and I have personally experienced 

this wave of sentiment in my state. 

In my opinion, I find that both this animal ID probably and 

COOL go hand-in-hand. and I would appreciate the panel addressing this issue as well. 

I believe today’s hearing is not only appropriate and necessary 

but should be considered a sign of this subcommittee and the larger Ag Committee’s dedication to finding a positive outcome in the 

debate over animal ID protections. 

I commend your hard work and dedication to this issue, and I 

look forward, Mr. Chairman, to a continued level of coordination 

and communication as we work with the USDA, Congress and the 

various working groups joining together to find a resolution to this 

matter that works for everyone. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Nelson can be found in the 

appendix on page 46.] 

Senator TALENT. Well, I am grateful to the Senator for his comments, and I understand entirely if he has to go to another hearing. Staff tells me, Ben, that we seem to have picked the busiest 

afternoon so far in this year for this subcommittee hearing. 

Senator NELSON. I shall return. 

Senator TALENT. OK; great. 

Senator TALENT. We will go right to our first panel, which consists of the Hon. Bill Hawks, who is Under Secretary in the Department of Agriculture for Marketing and Regulatory Programs 

and, as such, is a very busy man, and so we are grateful to have 

him here with us today. 

Mr. Hawks, if you would give us your statement. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BILL HAWKS, UNDER SECRETARY,

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, MARKETING AND

REGULATORY PROGRAMS, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. HAWKS. Yes, sure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator 

Nelson. 

It is certainly a pleasure to be here with you today. The advent 

of the increased animal disease outbreak around the world over the 

past decade, especially the recent BSE-positive cow found in Washington state have intensified the public interest in developing a national animal identification program for the purpose of protecting 

animal health. 

While there is currently no national animal identification system 

in the United States for all animals of a given species, some segments of certain species are required to be identified as part of a 

current program disease eradication activities. In addition, some 

5

significant regional voluntary identification programs are in place, 

and others are currently being developed and tested. 

The investments made by USDA in identification projects as well 

as private sector investment in these and other projects have generated base and experience that provide a platform on which to 

build a national system. As an example, the National Farm Animal 

Identification Records, or FAIR, program is an animal identification program supported by USDA’s APHIS and the Holstein Association, USA, Incorporated, a nonprofit breed registry organization 

led by dairy producers. 

APHIS also provided funding for the Wisconsin Livestock Identification Consortium Initiative, an industry-managed and controlled 

information system. In addition to programs directly funded by 

USDA, a more comprehensive U.S. animal identification plan has 

been developed by an industry-state-Federal partnership including 

more than 100 animal industry and state and Federal Government 

professionals representing more than 70 associations. 

This plan is the United States Animal Identification Plan, or 

USAIP. While implementation details of the plan are still being 

worked on, the USAIP describes an information system and infrastructure to enable the identification of all animals and premises 

potentially exposed to an animal with a disease of concern within 

a 48-hour period. 

Species-specific working groups are currently working with the 

framework of the USAIP to develop animal identification implementation details for those breeds and species. Governance of 

USAIP is planned as a joint Federal-state responsibility, with oversight and input from industry. The USAIP notes that costs would 

be substantial and recommended both public and private funding 

to cover the cost of the program. 

The United States is not alone in developing animal identification systems. Most developed countries have either already adopted 

or are planning to adopt some system of identification and trace 

the movement of livestock within their borders. The European 

Union has adopted the most comprehensive program of animal 

identification and tracking. The Canadian Cattle Identification Program is an industry-led initiative to promote beef consumption 

through assurance of efficient traceback and containment of serious 

animal health and food safety problems. Australia has also developed a national livestock identification scheme for identifying and 

tracing livestock. 

There are a number of important lessons that have been learned 

from the work that has been ongoing within the United States and 

the rest of the world. First, it is critically important to get support 

from the industry as we shape an animal identification system for 

the United States. Second, there is no one-size-fits-all technology. 

Third, both public and private funding will be required for any system to become fully operational. 

We believe that in designing a U.S. system, important factors to 

consider are the diversity, the complexity of our animal industries, 

and the lack of experience with animal identification for a large 

number of producers. This extreme diversity and complexity make 

immediate scaling up of a current project that has been funded by 

USDA difficult if not impossible until a thorough evaluation of 

6

those projects for potential use on a national scale and for a significantly broader scope than initially tested can be conducted. 

In addition to the large number of animals, producers and nonproducers that must be accounted for in a national system, there 

is also a decided lack of experience with the individual animal 

identification in the United States, and where it exists, the systems 

are quite diverse. A large number of producers, especially calf operators, do not currently individually identify their animals. Thus, a 

major component of a national system will be educating livestock 

producers and processors as to how the system would operate and 

their responsibilities. To meet the educational needs of the livestock producer and processor, USDA will need to work in concert 

with states, organizations and other stakeholders. 

Another issue is the authority of USDA to implement a national 

identification system. The Animal Health Protection Act enabled 

the Secretary to prevent, detect, control, eradicate diseases and 

pests of animals in order to protect animal health, the health and 

welfare of people, the economic interests of livestock and related interests, the environment and the interstate and foreign commerce 

in animals and other articles. 

The Animal Health Protection Act gives the Secretary broad 

range of authorities. We believe the provisions of the Animal 

Health Protection Act provide the Secretary with ample authority 

to establish and implement either a mandatory or voluntary system of animal identification. 

The National Animal Identification System would provide information on animal numbers by location and the movement of those 

animals over their lifespan. The potential disclosure of individual 

producers and processing plant information give rise to concerns 

about the accessibility and confidentiality of individual records contained in the national animal identification base base. Federal legislation addressing the confidentiality and accessibility of information in a national identification base base may be needed to address the concerns of livestock producers and processors and expedite the implementation of a national identification system. 

Our goal is to create an effective, uniform, consistent and efficient national system. We believe this goal can be achieved by adhering to several key objectives. First, the system should allow producers, to the extent possible, the flexibility to use the current systems or adapt new ones. 

Second, this flexibility can best be achieved by having a system 

that is technology-neutral so that all existing forms of effective 

technology and new forms of technologies maybe developed in the 

future may be utilized. 

Third, the national identification system should use and 

buildupon the excellent base standards developed by the USAIP. 

Fourth, the system must not preclude producers from being able 

to use it with production management systems that respond to 

market initiatives. 

Fifth, the architecture for the national animal identification system must be designed so that the system does not unduly increase 

the role and size of government. The President’s budget proposal 

for fiscal year 2005 requests $33 million to fund that year’s activities for system implementation. No funds have been appropriated 

7

for fiscal year 2004. Since we plan to initiate an implementation 

during fiscal year 2004, we are considering alternative methods of 

funding including emergency funding from the Commodity Credit 

Corporation. 

USDA plans to move forward with implementation of a national 

animal identification system in 2004 first on a voluntary basis and 

eventually with a requirement for premises and individual animal 

identification for all animals. Although we are still developing our 

specific timeline for implementation and deciding on funding mechanisms, we can provide some preliminary and general indication of 

activities for 2004. 

Our implementation would begin with an assessment this winter 

and spring of existing premise and animal number allocated systems in use. Based on that review, we would select the most promising infrastructure to fund and develop the national premise allocator number and repository system and an animal identification 

allocation number and repository system. 

We believe these national systems could be in place by late summer to begin allocating premise identification numbers to cooperators, states, tribes and certain other entities that are ready to register premises. We would envision providing some funding through 

cooperative agreements to states, tribes and other entities. At this 

point, we do not envision Federal funding being used for individual 

eartags or other such devices. However, funding of select electronic 

readers could be accommodated under the agreements with some 

cooperators. 

During the summer and into the fall, we would also focus on 

identifying qualifying third parties such as private industry and 

trade associations that have identification products or programs, so 

they could be integrated into the national system later this fall. By 

late fall, we would then be in a position to issue premise and animal identification numbers to third parties to begin receiving that 

information. 

Many issues must be resolved before we can accomplish this task 

just identified for 2004 and beyond. We look forward to working 

with the national producers, the industry and Congress to be successful in creating a national animal identification system. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, I would 

be happy to respond to questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hawks can be found in the appendix on page 49.] 

Senator TALENT. Senator Harkin has arrived. I want to recognize 

him—I see Senator Baucus as well. Well, Tom, you are ready to go, 

and you have a brief one. Why do you not just go. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM HARKIN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

IOWA, RANKING MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, 

NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY 

Senator HARKIN. Very brief, yes, thank you very much, Mr. 

Chairman, and thank you for the opportunity to look into the development of a national animal ID system. 

The need has become abundantly clear since the discovery of 

BSE in Washington State. It is also clear that technology exists to 

implement the program. As I have done previously, I urge the 

8

USDA to move forward with a system to protect animal health, 

public health, and to ensure confidence by both domestic and foreign markets. 

Given the significance of all of these concerns, USDA must develop the program in a very transparent manner. One of the first 

things USDA needs to do is announce its plans to ensure that those 

affected by the program, including livestock producers and other industry participants and consumers, will have an opportunity to observe and comment on the critical decisions USDA faces. 

There is going to be some controversial decisions ahead. The only 

real way to build consensus through the industry is to provide 

those affected with a voice in the process. As the system is designed, USDA needs to make sure that it protects the ability of 

farmers and ranchers to be independent. The last thing we need is 

a system that locks a producer into delivering to one packer or 

vertical chain having a unique animal identification system and 

thus take away the producer’s ability to seek other buyers. 

A system need not be designed to encourage this kind of vertical 

integration, and I urge the USDA to be cognizant of this issue as 

it moves forward. A national animal ID system raises a host of 

other questions that I look forward to learning about today and in 

the near future, such as how it will be funded, how will confidentiality and liability issues be addressed, what is the timeline for 

implementation? 

I look forward to working with my Senate colleagues, USDA and 

members of the livestock industry and the public to ensure a workable, cost-effective animal ID system. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator TALENT. Thank you, Senator. 

Our ranking member is here. Senator Baucus. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

MONTANA 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Clearly, this is a good opportunity to try to find the best way to 

set up a national ID system that is going to work. I just have a 

couple of points. First, thanks for holding the hearing. There is always a silver lining in every cloud. You have the BSE cloud here, 

and I guess one potential silver lining here is it almost forces us 

now to come up with some way to minimize to a higher degree the 

recurrence not only of BSE but other diseases and other problems 

that may or may not happen. 

I am no great animal pathologist, but certainly, it just seems 

that as the world becomes more complicated, and there is more 

interaction among more people, more animals, people and animals 

and so forth, different kinds of little viruses or bacteria develop and 

become sometimes immune more quickly than we would like, and 

it is a very uncertain world, and in some sense, even more uncertain every day. 

The degree to which we can sort of get this right, as right as we 

can get it, clearly the greater the service we will be providing. 

A couple other points here. This gives us an opportunity to a lot 

of good questions of people. I firmly believe in the old John Locke 

sunshine idea, that the more people vigorously debate a certain 

9

point of view, the more likely it is that the truth is going to 

emerge. It is old fashioned, but I believe it. I hope that that is a 

consequence of this hearing. 

We have some real experts here. I know, Mr. Hawks, thank you 

for testifying, but in addition to that, from my home State, Ron 

Ostberg of the Cattle Producers is going to be on the third panel 

from Scobey, Montana; also, Bob Lehfeldt, a sheep producer from 

Lavina, Montana. 

I say they are experts because they are. They are the front line. 

They are the producers. They are the ones that whose livelihoods 

are at stake here. They are the people of the soil, just really good, 

good, good people. I know both of them quite well. One is a cattle 

producer, as I mentioned, the other in sheep. My family raises both 

cattle and sheep, and I have known them for years, and they are 

honest, common sense, no nonsense guys. 

We are also proud in the West, as you know, Mr. Chairman and 

Mr. Hawks, that we have an ID system already in place. It is 

called hot iron brands. It works pretty well. Cattle are IDed at 

birth, basically, or not quite at birth but in the calving and get also 

eartagged most of the time. It worked in this case, too, and 

herdmates of the Canadian-found BSE case were discovered traveling through Montana. Because of Montana’s branding laws, these 

animals research tracked within less than 24 hours. 

We are just saying and asking, as we put this together, that I 

know you will, Mr. Hawks: include producers; include people who 

really are directly affected by this directly. We cannot have something top down here. It is got to really work from people at the bottom up. 

We also have some additional tracking systems. It is not just 

branding. We have something called the Montana Beef Network, 

which uses radio frequency identification and a computer base 

base. I have forgotten the number; it is 14,000 head have already 

been identified in Montana with this system. It is something we developed at home. It is a separate, additional kind of technology. 

We do not want to reinvent the wheel here, but we want to be 

able to look at different technologies, not get too locked into one. 

We want to be sufficiently flexible here to allow existing tracking 

programs to be utilized as well and also safeguards to prevent any 

point in the supply chain from demanding one certain technology 

and limiting producer choice. 

In addition, it is important to remember that—let us not be 

kneejerk here. Let us be thoughtful. The questions that Montanans 

are asking, when I surveyed folks at home, are, first, cost. What 

is the cost of all of this going to be? Who is going to bear the burden? How is the cost going to be distributed, and how much Uncle 

Sam, how much producers, how much others in the system? We 

have to think that through and be up front about it. 

Next are privacy questions: Who is going to have access to details 

of a rancher’s operations? Ranchers are very concerned about—they 

want to do the right thing, but on the other hand, they do not want 

some ID system to enable, either under FOIA or something else, 

to find everything under the sun about a rancher’s operations. It 

is not really relevant, but we want to make sure that that is not 

an unintended consequence of all of this. 

10

The third general set of questions revolve around the integrity of 

this system: what safeguards will be enacted to maintain the integrity of a national ID system? 

Mr. Chairman, I guess, thank you for holding this hearing. 

Thank you, Mr. Hawks, and I also want to thank my good friends 

from Montana who are here, because I appreciate your taking the 

time to come all the way to Washington, DC I know it is not the 

first item on your agenda to get on an airplane and come to Washington, DC, but thanks a lot for coming, and thank you again, Mr. 

Chairman and Mr. Hawks. 

Senator TALENT. Well, I thank the Senator for his comments. 

Bill, the good news is, as I listen to the opening statements, we 

seem to be speaking more or less off the same page in terms of the 

concerns, and all of us are really reflecting what we are hearing 

back home from our producers. Now Senator Harkin and Senator 

Baucus came in as you were ending your comments, and they both 

raised a concern that I had, which was timing for a rollout or what 

you are considering doing, and you discussed that in your testimony. 

Would you just take a minute and repeat what you are saying 

regarding your plans, at least for 2004? 

Mr. HAWKS. Sure. 

Senator BAUCUS. Mr. Chairman, if I might, I ask to be excused 

here. I have a bill I am managing on the floor. It is a jobs bill trying to lower taxes on Montana and national domestic production so 

that we can get more products produced in America and more jobs 

in America. 

Senator TALENT. Completely understand, Senator, and if you 

have any questions for the record, we will sure put them in. I note 

that I picked a very busy day for this, so I will say to Senator Harkin, it is my intention after he answers this, and I am going to ask 

a little bit about confidentiality, to defer to you for any questions 

you may have—just really wanted to—OK, well, why do not you 

answer that one and then I will just defer to Senator Harkin, let 

him ask his question in case he has to go. 

Mr. HAWKS. We recognize the fact that it is going to be difficult 

to ramp this up immediately, and so, our plans are this summer 

of 2004, we would be able to do the premise identification and then 

earlier in 2005 to be able to do the individual identification. That 

is a ramp-up process. 

We want to be evaluating the systems that we have already invested in to try to determine which ones of those are the best candidates to be the national repository, and that is really our plan, 

to start in fiscal year 2004 with the premise ID and then move into 

the individual ID shortly thereafter. 

Senator TALENT. Why do not I just recognize Senator Harkin to 

get a question or two, because I am here anyway, and I do not 

know if you need to go. 

Senator HARKIN. I really appreciate that. Thank you very much, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, and I really thank the Chairman for giving this 

opportunity to ask a question here. I just basically—I had a lot of 

questions I will submit for the record, but one we have to clear up, 

as I have been doing my job and going to these meetings and stuff 

11

around the Hill today, I heard a report that came out, and I want 

to make sure we can get it clarified here, concerning USDA’s position on whether the program would be mandatory, and it comes 

out—I guess you testified before a House Ag Appropriations Committee meeting this morning. 

What I am hearing is that you said it would be up to industry 

on whether to make this program mandatory. You cited the possibility that a large retailer like Wal-Mart might mandate animal 

identification. As all of the testimony that has been submitted 

today indicates, an animal ID system is needed for health reasons, 

and also given that some of the animal health issues concern diseases that can cross from animals to humans, obviously BSE, it is 

also a public health concern also. 

Again, I wanted to give you a chance to clear this up—these are 

just reports that are coming out—and clear up whether or not the 

determination of animal health and public health policy would be 

left to a few large private entities or how this is going to happen, 

and I just wanted to give you the opportunity to clear up some of 

these rumors. There are reports that are going around. 

Mr. HAWKS. Sure, there is obviously a lot of confusion in the way 

those questions were asked, maybe in the way the questions were 

answered on my part as well. Let me first emphasize the fact that 

it is our desire for animal disease control and eradication purposes 

to have animal identification. Preferably, we would like to see this 

market-driven. Therefore, we would like to see a voluntary system 

work. We really do not care whether it is a voluntary system, 

whether it is a required system, but the desire is to get a system 

in place. 

If the system can be 100 percent voluntary, that would certainly 

be my preference to have that system in place. That is really where 

we would prefer to go. Whatever method we get—and this is for 

animal disease control purposes and eradication purposes. 

Senator HARKIN. Well, Mr. Secretary, again, I understand; let me 

just throw again—a follow-up question on that again is, since there 

are public health concerns associated with this, because some of 

these diseases can cross over to humans, in those cases, I am not 

certain that just simply leaving it to the market might be sufficient. I can only assume that in your developing this, you are 

bringing in entities like the CDC; you are bringing in other public 

health agencies to take a look at this and to have their input into 

a system that might be designed. 

Mr. HAWKS. Senator Harkin, the animal identification component 

that we are working on now is we are structuring it as designed 

for animal disease control. That is the animal disease, animal 

health officials are the ones that we anticipate having access to 

this system. 

Senator HARKIN. Maybe I am not asking my question right. What 

I am saying is that you are developing an animal ID system. There 

are a number of reasons why this is being done. One is for consumer confidence here. It is for making sure that our markets overseas, that we can have something our customers want overseas; 

after all, the customer is always right, as they say. 

Then, there is another element to that. That is public health concerns, in terms of animal diseases that can cross over into the 

12

human area. In that case, it is not simply just a market system; 

it is a public health concern, and that is why I am asking if you 

are going to bring in public health officials, Center for Disease Control people—that is really our public health entity in America—and 

others to have some input into this process, and as I said in my 

opening statement, to make it transparent and open. 

Mr. HAWKS. Senator, it is certainly a transparent and open process as we move forward here, and it is our desire to have 100 percent compliance with this, and as I was saying, we would prefer to 

have it on a voluntary basis. As far as having the transparency 

that you are talking about, having the opportunity for whomever 

to participate in this, whether it is the CDC, whether it is your producers in Iowa, whether it is the producers in Missouri, whether 

it is the State health officials, the animal health officials or whomever, it is totally open, totally transparent. 

Senator HARKIN. Well, I hope so, and I hope that you are giving 

due concern to the public health aspect of this also, because if a 

system is designed, at least, Mr. Chairman, I feel, wherein the public health concern area has not been involved and open, and they 

have not had their concerns heard and contemplated, that we 

might have some problems with that. 

Senator TALENT. Senator, if you would just yield for a question. 

Senator HARKIN. Sure. 

Senator TALENT. You got a partial answer, but I am not—Bill, 

is it fair to say that, in terms of your current plans, you are open 

to the CDC commenting, but you do not have specific plans to go 

seek them out, which is what you are asking. Is that a fair summary? 

Mr. HAWKS. That is correct; it is certainly open, transparent. 

Anyone who would like to participate, that is exactly——

Senator TALENT. I do not want to put words in Senator Harkin’s 

mouth, but he is saying you might want to make certain that they 

come over and give you a few comments, since there are health——

Senator HARKIN. You got your finger on it. The Chairman put his 

finger on it. 

Mr. HAWKS. They are certainly welcome at the table, Senator. 

Senator TALENT. OK. 

Senator HARKIN. Well, I am urging you to not say you are welcome; I am urging you to seek out our public health agency, CDC; 

bring them in on this from the beginning in this process and not 

wait for them. 

You are right, Mr. Chairman, you figured out what the disconnect here was. 

Senator TALENT. Yes, I was just looking at the outside of the conversation; I thought I could expedite things. 

Senator HARKIN. That is great. 

Mr. HAWKS. Sometimes, we need outside help. 

Senator HARKIN. I am urging you to bring them in and be 

proactive in bringing them in. I guess that is what I am saying. 

One last thing I would just say, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator TALENT. Sure. 

Senator HARKIN. I have heard from some groups that represent 

small farmers, small processors, that they do not feel that they are 

having an opportunity to be heard. There is a concern, as I said 

13

in my opening statement, that somehow, we may be going to a system that is vertical; that large processors would have a certain system, and that if you do not meet that, you are out of it and there 

is a great concern among independent producers about that, so——

Mr. HAWKS. Senator, I would certainly take the opportunity to 

respond to that. 

We recognize, and in my opening statement, I said one size does 

not fit all. Therefore, we want to make sure that we do not disenfranchise those small producers——

Senator HARKIN. I appreciate that. 

Mr. HAWKS [continuing]. Anywhere. 

Senator HARKIN. I appreciate that. 

Mr. HAWKS. Thank you. 

Senator HARKIN. Mr. Chairman, you have been very kind. 

Senator TALENT. Oh, no, I appreciate the Senator’s attendance on 

a busy day. 

Let me follow-up on a few points, Bill, and I appreciate your testimony was very open. You actually answered some of the questions I had, and it does seem like the Department at this point has 

recognized and is working on the concerns that Senators have 

raised. Let me go a little bit into the confidentiality aspect of this. 

I understand, I am not asking you for the specifics that you want 

this process to get you. It is really not fair for me to say you have 

to tell me exactly what you anticipate this process to do when we 

have all been urging you to be open and to listen to what people 

say and adjust in response to the process, OK? 

I was hoping that we could get for Senators and for the record 

your thinking on these subjects, and I would encourage you to be 

forthcoming. I do think generally the subcommittee and the committee is supportive, and we are generally on the same page in 

terms of where you are trying to go. 

Is it anticipated that the base would be accessed in the case of 

some kind of emergency disease situation only? If not, are there 

other situations where you think it might be accessed by the Government, or are there areas where you are open—we are going to 

hear from, in the second panel from Dr. Schmitz-Hsu from Switzerland, who is going to talk a little bit about how that system, now 

that they have had it in place for a number of years, how that information is available there and how they are using it actually 

with supporter producers for marketing efforts, et cetera. 

Would you just share with us a little bit about what you think 

in that area? 

Mr. HAWKS. Yes, sir, Senator. 

It is our intent for this information that is in this national repository, if you will, to only be available for those animal health officials, whether it is State officials, whether it is Federal Government animal health officials, to carry on their disease control work. 

Some of it—it would not necessarily say that it would only be 

accessed just for an emergency situation; some routine surveillance, 

routine observations there that it would be available for those purposes. 

That is really what our intent is. We have no intent of this being 

accessed by any Government official, Government agencies that do 

not have a need to know for an animal disease standpoint. 

14

Having said that, we also want this system that is being developed to be broad enough to allow those producers the opportunity 

on their behalf, if they want to have other market-driven information that could be attached to it, but somewhere else, not in our 

repository. We only want to know those things for movement, that 

identification. That is what we are looking at for our purposes. 

Senator TALENT. Did I understand you to say that, again, I understand it is a long way down the road, but the only time this information would be available without the specific approval of the 

producer would be in the case of some kind of an animal disease 

situation? 

Mr. HAWKS. Animal disease situation. 

Senator TALENT. An agency that had authority, statutory authority to look into that, which I assume would be the Department. 

Mr. HAWKS. Right, it would be the APHIS, Animal Plant Health 

Inspection Service. It could be State animal health officials, those 

that need to have it for that purpose. 

Senator TALENT. Now, when you set up the pilot projects, is it 

your intention for APHIS to set guidelines that the plans have to 

follow? Or are you going to leave it up to the organizations submitting those plans? 

Mr. HAWKS. We will have guidelines as we look at additional requests for participation in the program. There would be some 

guidelines, but they should be fairly wide. There should be opportunity from those that want to participate to have the opportunity 

to do that. 

Senator TALENT. OK; I have a question staff has prepared: do 

you feel confident that terrorist organizations will not have access 

to the information? I am guessing that you are not going to approve a plan unless you are confident terrorist organizations are 

not going to have access to the information. 

Mr. HAWKS. Well, I guess it depends on what they identify as 

terrorist organizations. 

No, sir, we have no intent of having terrorist organizations 

have——

Senator TALENT. It is a concern that we need to be——

Mr. HAWKS. Sure. 

Senator TALENT. Because we certainly do not, we want to be 

careful with hackers and everything that people cannot get in. This 

is an important thing to do, but I really support what is the intention of the Department to move, yes, with speed in the sense that 

you do not rest; you do not just let it sit there for 6 months, but 

taking care that we do this the right way. 

When you talked about mandatory and voluntary, for example, 

it is my sense, observing what you are doing is that the idea here 

is to get some pilot programs out that meet the needs that we have 

identified of the public interest that producers feel at least reasonably comfortable with and then see, maybe, a little bit how they 

grow on their own, and then, if everything is working pretty well, 

at some point come in a little bit later with the more mandatory 

type system. 

Is that how you might envision this? 

Mr. HAWKS. Yes, sir, that is exactly it. I would really like to stay 

away from the terminology mandatory, because it was certainly our 

15

objective to get—if we could get 100 percent participation or near 

100 percent participation without having anything mandatory, I 

mean, it is our desire to have this system, have as much participation as we possibly can. Whatever way we get there, that is where 

we want to go. 

I personally think, being a farmer myself, I have a tendency to 

think that we would get more participation through a voluntary 

system that works efficiently, works effectively than we would from 

a top-driven system. 

Senator TALENT. Yes, and if we all step back and just think in 

real life how this is going to work, the two options really just collapse, because we all want a system that will work. We can talk 

about mandatory or voluntary. I would say, though, that a system 

that is coercive, that we push down on top of our producers when 

they are fighting it with everything that they have, is just not a 

system that is going to work and therefore is not a system that is 

in anybody’s interest. 

Would you agree with that? 

Mr. HAWKS. I certainly agree with that. 

Senator TALENT. It is one thing if you have a lot of pilots, and 

some of them are really working, and you sort of steer in the direction of the one you think is the best, and you have to push a little 

bit at a certain point, but if you are just absolutely jamming it, 

what that means is it is probably not working out there, and then, 

we are not going to get the kind of certainty that we want. 

Mr. HAWKS. You are right, Senator. That is exactly what we intend to do, to evaluate these systems that we have already invested 

in. There will be some additional opportunities for those that have 

ideas and have systems that they would like to participate in the 

program. We do those evaluations, be very thorough, very deliberate, and then move toward those systems that certainly can deliver what we are looking for. 

Senator TALENT. It is important to remind everybody, if the system is not working out there, and the industry does not have confidence in it, it could end up producing the opposite of what we 

want, because if it tell us certain things about premises, in the case 

of a disease situation, but we do not have, and our trading partners 

do not have real confidence, because the system is being resisted 

out there, well, then, we do not know how to act on that information or not. 

I would expect some elements of maybe—it is going to be largely, 

I do not want to say entirely—voluntary but it is something where 

you are going to have to work with industry to make this thing 

work. We are all in agreement with that. 

A couple more questions. We do have a couple of other panels, 

and you have been generous with your time. Are the development 

efforts with USAIP still underway? Is that group disbanding? Tell 

us the status of that. 

Mr. HAWKS. No, sir, USAIP is a vital part of what we have done. 

We have taken the excellent work that they have done over the last 

almost 2 years now; built on that. We certainly want them to engage with us at this particular point in time. They are a grassroots 

group, and we think it is vitally important that they stay engaged, 

work with us to try to get forward. My motto is working together 

16

works, and we need to work together with USAIP as well as all industry interests to move forward. 

Senator TALENT. You referenced existing ID programs that have 

received Federal funds. There are other programs that are working 

out there that have not received Federal funds. There is a good 

breed association tracking systems; Kentucky’s animal ID system. 

Are you going to consider the merits of those programs? 

Mr. HAWKS. Yes, sir, we sure will. 

Senator TALENT. Yes, you are not just going to look at the ones 

that you have funded to this point. That is good. 

Mr. HAWKS. No, sir. 

Senator TALENT. See if I have anything. 

Let us just get briefly—I do not know that it is appropriate at 

this stage to get heavily into this, but how are you going to work 

with the States? How do you anticipate—are they going to control 

some of this base? What about premise distribution or premise 

numbers distribution? Do you want to comment on that for us? 

Mr. HAWKS. Sure, the comment I would like to make there is the 

States are going to be vitally important in everything that we do; 

as a matter of fact, the vast majority of the authority that we use 

under—until we declare an extraordinary emergency for animal 

disease control—the situation with avian influenza in Delaware 

today, we are doing with State authority, and even in Texas right 

today, we are using State authority to handle the avian influenza 

there. 

It is absolutely vital that the States are well-connected and wellinvolved in this system. 

Senator TALENT. That is all I have. Other Senators may have 

questions to submit for the record. We do appreciate your being 

here today, Mr. Hawks, and look forward to probably further hearings on this as you develop the program. 

Mr. HAWKS. Thank you very much, Senator. 

Senator TALENT. Thank you for coming. 

Senator TALENT. As Mr. Hawks excuses himself, if the next panel 

could come forward, please. 

I want to welcome our second panel. Let me introduce both of 

you at the same time, and then, we will go to Dr. Marsh first because that is the order I have here on my paper. I do not know that 

it really matters. Dr. Brett Marsh, who is the first vice-president 

of the U.S. Animal Health Association and the Indiana State Veterinarian; and then, Dr. Fritz Schmitz, I understand, is how I 

should pronounce it, sir, who is the former CEO of an tracing base 

base corporation, and you can pronounce the name of that company. I am not going to attempt to do so, sir. I am very much looking forward to both your testimonies. and Dr. Schmitz, especially, 

well, I do not want to say I am not looking forward to yours, Dr. 

Marsh, but I will be very enlightening to the Subcommittee and the 

record to hear your experience in Switzerland and compare it to 

what you see happening here. 

Dr. Marsh, if you would go ahead with your testimony; thank 

you. 

17

STATEMENT OF BRETT MARSH, FIRST VICE PRESIDENT, U.S. 

ANIMAL HEALTH ASSOCIATION, INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA 

Mr. MARSH. Thank you, Chairman Talent, Ranking Member 

Baucus, the members of the Subcommittee. 

I really appreciate the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee today on this extremely important issue with regard to 

developing a national animal identification system. In February 

2003 was released a document titled the National Strategy for 

Physical Protection for Critical Infrastructures and Key Assets and 

it was indicated in that document and significantly that agriculture 

and food were listed as one of the critical infrastructures for the 

country. 

More recently, in January of this year, the President signed 

Homeland Security Presidential Directive No. 9, which establishes 

a policy for defending our ag and food systems in the country, and 

both of these illustrate the importance of this sector and that there 

is need to put safeguards in place in order to protect us for the 

long-term. 

Identification of livestock, of course, is one of those critical components in order for us to have an effective and efficient response 

to an animal health emergency, and quite frankly, the safety of the 

nation’s food supply, our animal health and public health are at 

risk, and therefore, we need to take a hard look and be prepared 

as a nation to take some definitive actions and definitive steps. 

There are three basic tenets, if we take a look at those and use 

those in developing a successful plan and implementing that plan 

that will help us as we move forward, and the first of those tenets 

is that animal identification is not new. It has been mentioned here 

this morning that we have a variety of ID systems that have been 

used for decades across the country, whether they be brands, as 

Senator Baucus has mentioned, in his State, eartags, ear notches, 

back tags; we have had a variety of systems over the years that 

we have utilized, and of course, we have utilized those in my State 

as well, but unfortunately the shortcomings that we have with 

those systems and the lack of a national ID system result in an inadequate traceback capability for us at the State level and therefore inadequate for a country as a whole and unfortunately leave 

our livestock populations exposed to disease. 

Although, therefore, we have significant interest and experience 

with a variety of these systems, there is indeed a need for a dramatic change, a comprehensive animal identification system, and 

this is in part because of the changes in our industry. The industries the I serve in Indiana have changed dramatically over the last 

5 years, let alone 10, and also in addition to the fact that in this 

post-9/11 environment, we recognize that this sector is subject and 

a potential target for terrorist activity, either domestically or internationally. 

There is a need for a plan, a new plan with new goals, and tenet 

No. 2 is that there is such a plan. It may not be the plan, but it 

is a plan, and it has given us a templates where we can move forward. It is a template to identify the future needs of the United 

States for animal identification purposes. It is been developed by 

70 organizations and associations working over the last 2 years, involving up to 400 individuals, so indeed a grassroots effort supVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:56 Sep 16, 2004 Jkt 092570 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\92570.TXT TOSHD PsN: TOSH
18

ported by USDA and the State animal health officials to identify 

the best ways to accomplish this task. 

They have done a good job in trying to identify and address those 

gaps in our current systems, and they have come down to three 

basic objectives, and they are important objectives as you look at 

the U.S. Animal Identification Plan. The first is that there be a 

uniform premise identification system. This is one of the primary 

objectives, one of the primary goals of this USAIP and will serve 

us well in the long run. 

The second objective is a uniform individual animal identification 

system or, depending upon the commodity, it may be a group or lot 

identification system. That is one of the things that needs to be 

worked out as we continue to refine this plan. 

Senator TALENT. We have to work out what uniform means, too. 

Mr. MARSH. Indeed, indeed. 

The third objective under that plan is that there be a 48-hour 

traceback capability. That is extremely important for us as well as 

we look at the experience of some of our global neighbors with the 

challenges they have had even 3 years ago with foot and mouth 

disease in the United Kingdom and having an effective traceback 

capability. 

The United States Animal Health Association, after careful review of this plan, passed a resolution at their meeting last fall that 

basically endorsed the plan as a work in progress and encouraged 

the USDA to establish species-specific working groups to get down 

to some of those specific needs of the commodity organizations to 

make sure they are addressed and their concerns are addressed as 

they move forward with the plan. 

It is interesting, in the fall of 2002, USDA hosted a table top exercise. It is called Crimson Sky. As I recall, Senator Roberts of this 

Subcommittee served as the chief executive during that table top 

exercise. Not unlike exercises that have taken place all across the 

country at the State level, and my State being one of them, it does 

not take very long to determine that if you do not know where the 

susceptible species are located before you have the outbreak, you 

have lost a lot of time and therefore may result in significant and 

catastrophic losses for the industry. 

We experienced that in our State, and therefore, we recognize 

that that is one of the basic objectives of the USAIP and an important piece of that. 

Individual identification, as I mentioned, we have been doing it 

for years, and a variety of programs have been used for ownership 

purposes or animal health purposes, but it is significant that in our 

most recent experience in Washington State, with a case that was 

identified in December of last year, that at the close of the BSE investigation, there were still cattle we could not find, and that is 

with our current system. 

We could all agree that it was better for the United States to experience BSE instead of foot and mouth disease with that kind of 

result. It is important for us to take a look at what is out there, 

and it is a compelling reason that I mentioned to move forward. 

The USAIP also identifies some of the best technology that they 

believe should be utilized, and that is the RFID, the radio frequency ID, for individual identification purposes, and it is also imVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:56 Sep 16, 2004 Jkt 092570 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\92570.TXT TOSHD PsN: TOSH
19

portant because, based on what we have learned in my State and 

likely yours, Senator, that it may be the least disruptive to the 

markets process so that we can still trade and move our product 

amongst our States, which is important to all of us. 

The third tenet is that we have to have a workable time line and 

budget, and that has been discussed here today. Although the BSE 

case in Washington State has certainly energized the interest and 

the need for this plan, we have to have the infrastructure in place, 

or it will not work, and we have discussed that here this morning 

and not only the infrastructure but identifying the unique needs of 

the commodities. 

We talked a lot about the cattle industry, but certainly, swine is 

big in my State and other commodities, so we need to make sure 

that we have identified their specific needs. 

I applaud the USDA and Secretary Veneman for taking definitive actions to raise this to a level of interest at the national level, 

to make sure that this moves forward and particularly in asking 

her chief information officer and others in leadership positions at 

USDA to take a look at how to evaluate and for the implementation of the plan. 

One of my primary concerns and why I appreciate this effort 

from USDA is that there must be an information technology system 

to make sure this works. I am looking forward to the next speaker’s presentation with regard to some of his remarks in this area, 

because we clearly have to have a situation that can gather and 

store and retrieve these key datum elements, because that is really 

the underpinning of the USAIP and the needs that we have as a 

country. 

We also have to have it so we can respond the evolving technologies. What we have today, obviously, may not satisfy all the 

needs that we have in the near term. 

Senator TALENT. Doctor, we almost have to—Dr. Schmitz, we are 

all anticipating your testimony—it would seem to me that we almost need to know what that is going to be before we do the rest 

of the system, because everything else is going to have to put base 

into that part of the system, the base bank that we have. 

I agree with you, that is crucial. Then, as long as we work with 

producers and the States and—the rest of the system can adjust to 

that a little bit. Would you say that is fair? 

Mr. MARSH. That is an accurate statement, Senator. That is one 

of the things, frankly, we are looking to USDA to say what is that 

template, because the interest is there at the producer level and we 

are ready to move forward as long as we know what that is. Without that, we would be lost. 

One of the other issues that we run into is on this time line, and 

I am interested—and Undersecretary Hawks is here this afternoon—is that one of the challenges that we would be met with, and 

our cattle industry is not as large as yours is in Missouri, for example, but we have 19,000 cattle herds in our state, and if we were 

to accomplish this, say, over a 90-day period of time, we would 

have to register in the neighborhood of 200 of those every day. 

That is one of the real challenges that we see in order to accomplish that. In your State, that would be in the neighborhood of 765 

a day, and so, it could equate to a major task trying to do it well. 

20

In Indiana, we have established partnerships with our commodity organizations, because we recognize that as the State animal health official, we are not going to do it by ourselves. We recognize the value of their work with the USAIP, and our Indiana 

Beef Cattle Association, for example, has established an ID working group so they can begin to work through those specific nuances 

that have to be resolved. 

Resources, of course, have come up already this afternoon, and 

appropriately, clearly, it is going to have to be a public and private 

partnership, and back to your comments, Senator, we need to know 

what that template is to really begin to pound out what those figures will be in my State. 

Producers see the need, and there is the momentum to move forward. I have a number of questions from producers in my State, 

veterinarians and others, about how this needs to move forward 

and basically how they can help. The energy is there. We just need 

to have that template so we can begin to move forward. Likely, as 

is the case in other countries, it will likely take Federal funding to 

get it launched so that we can make sure that it is in place and 

sustainable for the long-term. Because otherwise, it is going to be 

in place for some time, we hope, to serve our needs for the longterm. 

Basically, those three basic tenets: that the ID is not new, and 

if we leverage the experience that we have out across the country; 

we have a lot of producers that certainly have used these systems 

over the years, but to pull all those together into a meaningful system is really the value that we have here today; that there is a new 

plan, the USAIP. It is not the complete plan, but at least, it is certainly a great, great start, and indeed, having that grassroots influence in that process has been very valuable and then having a 

workable time line and budget. 

We recognize that there is a lot of interest in moving forward, 

but clearly, we have to have those infrastructure pieces put in 

place before we launch a national program. 

Chairman——

Senator TALENT. I agree with you Dr. Marsh about the USAIP 

plan, and it addresses some of the concerns Senator Harkin raised 

about transparency; that process has been pretty transparent in 

terms of working with the groups that are out there already, and 

if we just disregard it, which is not going to happen, then, we give 

up all of that input that we have had. 

Mr. MARSH. Indeed, it has been a valuable process. It is people 

who work together, particularly when—it is one thing for a commodity organization to agree to a process, but collectively, having 

all of those bodies together, working together has made that document even more valuable. 

Well, Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity; I appreciate your 

holding the hearing. There is a lot of value that is coming from this 

hearing, and I look forward to any of your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Marsh can be found in the appendix on page 67.] 

Senator TALENT. Thank you, Dr. Marsh. 

21

As everybody can tell, particularly when I am the only one her, 

I like to keep it pretty informal, but I promise I will let the witnesses get through their statements——

[Laughter.] 

Senator TALENT [continuing]. With minimal interruptions, anyway. 

Dr. Schmitz, thank you for being here, and we all expect to learn 

a lot from your testimony. Please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF FRITZ SCHMITZ-HSU, FORMER CEO, 

TIERVERKEHRSDATENBANK, SWITZERLAND 

Mr. SCHMITZ-HSU. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to participate in this hearing. 

Respected Senators, ladies and gentlemen, I am very happy to 

report to you today on the experiences with animal tracking in 

Switzerland. I am here today because of four and a half years from 

its inception, I was CEO of the Tierverkehrsdatenbank AG, TVD 

AG, the animal tracking corporation in Switzerland. The TVD AG 

is the entity responsible for the design, implementation and operation of the Swiss animal identification and tracking system. 

In the nineties, Switzerland, suffering under outbreaks of BSE 

resulting from imported feedstuff was subject to a ban on the import of Swiss animal products by European and other countries. 

After due consideration of this and after danger of contagious diseases to the Swiss national herd, the Swiss veterinary authorities 

concluded there was an urgent need for an up-to-date animal tracking system. The solution had not only to address the problem of 

animal health but also help restore trust in Swiss animal products 

and promote food safety. 

The Swiss veterinary authorities concluded that the most effective solution would be to rely upon the private sector for the solution. The advantages that this would bring were faster setup and 

a more quickly operational system and increased support by the 

stakeholders, due to the fact that the new system and base collected could be more easily used for other purposes. 

To engage the involvement of the private sector in the design of 

the system, a competitive bid process under WTO rules was chosen. 

To participate in the competitive bid process, a consortium of interested Swiss agricultural organizations formed the TVD AG. I was 

chosen to serve as CEO. The organizations that came together did 

so because they recognized the impact and the potential a central 

animal tracking base base could have on their business. Together 

with our technology partner, the Swiss subsidiary of the American 

company Computer Science Corporation, we bid and won the contract. 

I understand there is great interest in how the private sector and 

the Swiss Government and the private sector arrived at the collaborative effort. At the beginning, the Swiss Government visited 

with all important agricultural organizations on how to define certain technical aspects of the system. Many of the organizations did 

not support the Swiss Government’s vision of the system. More or 

less every organization had its own version of the animal identification plan, and some wanted to offer their services to run the base 

base. 

22

Fortunately, the Swiss Government had already a very strong 

opinion on how the final solution should look, a central base base 

run by an independent company collecting base directly from the 

system participants. When we set up the animal tracking solution, 

we knew that it take time and be difficult to gather information on 

the complete national herd. It was decided, therefore, to take an 

iterative process with early implementation, focus on quick wins 

and refinement based on experience. 

Features of the solution are: common processes implemented nationwide rather than different processes by cantons, which corresponds to your states; the ability to exchange base with existing 

sources, including the incorporation of existing identification systems; multiple base entry systems with strong base access 

functionality; a solution that integrates the business processes; a 

fully scalable solution, easily expandable for additional needs of the 

public and private sectors; and all basic services of the solution 

were fully operational within 6 months of winning the contract. 

Enhancements, especially for providing base quality and provision of additional services, were added on an iterative and step-bystep basis over time. The Swiss parliament decided that funding for 

the setting up of the entire system would be provided by the Swiss 

Government but that operational costs have to be covered by the 

users; that means the producers, traders and slaughterhouses. 

In Switzerland we therefore started with a fee associated with 

the eartags applied to the animals, $2 per calf in 1999, $4 since 

January 2004, and, since 2003, also a fee, $4 since January of this 

year, per slaughtered animal to provide funding of the operational 

costs. Since these fees are uniformly applied, the system is fair, 

and the costs can be passed on uniformly to the consumers without 

penalizing the producers. 

In addition, and of crucial importance to the success of the system, it was decided that the base base would be made available for 

commercial value-added services, provided that the owners of the 

base gave their consent; thus, today, not only producers can use the 

base base for their inventory purposes but also agriculture organizations for instance breeding associations, Government organizations, slaughterhouses, meat packers, supermarket chains and soon 

even consumers. 

In particular, some food safety and quality programs operated by 

the supermarket chains rely on the animal tracking base base. We 

expect others to follow. This provides an additional source of revenue, which helps fund the operation of the whole animal tracking 

system. 

Over time, the cost to the Government for running the animal 

identification and tracking system, excluding investments, was reduced from 60 percent in 1999 to less than 20 percent in 2003 and 

completely self-funding since the start of this year. 

Another crucial aspect of the solution is the base quality. I cannot stress enough how important this aspect is. The value of the 

solution is directly dependent on the quality of the base. The best 

way to promote good quality is firstly through streamlined processes; second, with value-added services already mentioned; and especially by rewards for good quality base and penalties for missing 

or false base. 

23

Another aspect I would like to emphasize is the value of the business processes associated with the system. The processes are more 

crucial to the success of the solution than the software itself. We 

and our partners from CSE Switzerland have invested greatly in 

the processes and provide the expertise that we need. Experience 

is what counts for designing and running business processes. 

Regarding lessons learned from our 5 years experience with nationwide animal tracking, I would state the following: set up a central base base that serves not only for fighting animal diseases but 

as a tool for all organizations interested in animal identification. 

Gain experience before making major investments. The key success 

factors are the processes, training and acceptance. Allow the maximum value to be made from the base collected. Regulate access 

rights to protect the rights of the base owners, but impose no more 

base access restrictions than really necessary. 

Start with a new base base, but minimize extra costs by taking 

over existing base. Be careful not to make things too complicated 

and costly by catering to everything which already exists in order 

to satisfy certain groups. There must be common procedures and 

standard interfaces. Use a single central base base to reduce costs 

and minimize response time for impact analysis. 

Last, I would encourage you all to come to Switzerland and see 

yourself what we have in our solution. Talk to end users and familiarize yourself with the expertise we have built up. You are most 

welcome, and we would be very happy to collaborate with you. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Schmitz-Hsu can be found in the 

appendix on page 71.] 

Senator TALENT. Well, I can talk to the Chairman and see if we 

can arrange a trip for the members of the Subcommittee to Switzerland. That might be rather popular. I do not know. 

Thank you, Dr. Schmitz, for that. That was very, very helpful. 

Let me ask a few questions of you. You mentioned how crucial 

business processes are. Could you be a little bit more specific with 

that? I want to make certain I understand what you are talking 

about there. 

Mr. SCHMITZ-HSU. About business processes, from ordering the 

eartags, delivering the eartags, from registering the birth notifications over the whole cattle movement to their slaughterhouses, that 

you have fully impact this in a very streamlined fashion. 

Senator TALENT. That is within the agency the base base and the 

system? Or are you talking about the producers or both? 

Mr. SCHMITZ-HSU. That is for the agency which runs the base 

base. 

Senator TALENT. OK. 

Mr. SCHMITZ-HSU. You need to make sure that the system is consistent and simple to use for end users. 

Senator TALENT. Interesting. Is the base base operational for 

hogs, sheep, goats, other animals? 

Mr. SCHMITZ-HSU. Currently we have registration only of cattle. 

The system is set up so it can also handle pigs, sheep and goats. 

With pigs, sheep and goats, we currently only deliver uniform 

eartags to them, and we register who gets these eartags. We have 

the beginning of where the animal is born if later on, we see an 

24

urgent need to trace back where this animal comes from, but we 

do not register where and when this animal has been for pigs, 

sheep and goats. 

Senator TALENT. Are you moving in that direction? Do you think 

you will be there? 

Mr. SCHMITZ-HSU. We will do so as soon as there is need for 

doing that. Currently, there is not enough need for doing that. Also 

we are working currently with conventional eartags, and for instance, for hogs, you cannot rely on conventional eartags when you 

want to register all their movements. You have to switch to a radio 

frequency ID. The system is already set up, and we have already 

a trial with a radio frequency ID with cattle. 

Senator TALENT. Let us discuss that a little bit. In the list of the 

bullet point features in your solution, you mention the common 

numbering scheme and base collection systems, ability to exchange 

base with existing sources, including existing ID systems, multiple 

base entry systems, a solution integrating business processes. Does 

that mean that your system was technology-neutral as regards the 

technology used by a particular rancher? Radio frequency, eartags, 

bar code? Did it matter to your system what kind of technology 

they used, or were you able to keep it neutral? 

Mr. SCHMITZ-HSU. It is technology-independent. If you look at 

the identification, it matters actually only when reading the ID 

from the animal; that is just the distance to the reader. This reader 

can be electronic. It can be your eye. From there on, the process 

is exactly the same if you are talking of electronic ID or conventional ID. Our system is set up; there are some differences between 

RFIDs and conventional eartags, but that is a rather minor thing 

to incorporate, and we have done this already. 

Senator TALENT. That is up to the rancher, the producer about 

what kind of technology they want to use. 

Mr. SCHMITZ-HSU. Actually it is important that you set certain 

standards, because then, it will also be market-driven in buying 

these kinds of products. If you are buying 30 million identical identification ID, say, eartags or whatever it is, that is certainly cheaper than if you are buying 20 different versions of IDs. 

Senator TALENT. I get you. You set the standards, and then, 

there is flexibility in terms of which particular technology they 

want to use in meeting the standards. 

Mr. SCHMITZ-HSU. Right. 

Senator TALENT. Right; OK; did the system, as you were developing it, and actually, I should get back and establish for the 

record the time. You indicated in your testimony that your exports 

were being banned in 1996. You started the national ID program 

in 1998, which was several years later. How long did it take you 

to develop and implement this system once you got the mandate to 

do so? 

Mr. SCHMITZ-HSU. In 1996, it showed up; it was evidence that 

BSE can be transmitted to humans. That was when this was certainly an urgent need on fighting this BSE. It took 2 years until 

legislation has passed a law to implement a central base base. That 

was in 1998. In 1999, we brought in our offer, and we got the contract in May 1999. In December 1, 1999, that means less than 6 

months after we got the contract, we actually had already the naVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:56 Sep 16, 2004 Jkt 092570 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\92570.TXT TOSHD PsN: TOSH
25

tional base base running, being able to register all newborn calves. 

Within less than 6 months. 

Senator TALENT. How long did it take after that to get cows registered? You had the system ready, but how long before you had 

all the animals on the system? 

Mr. SCHMITZ-HSU. We started with the newborn calves, and a 

year later, we registered all animals on the base base. We took our 

base from breeding associations to avoid that we had to go again 

to collect information on cows which were already registered in 

breeding associations’ base bases. We had to register the remaining 

cows which were not in a herd. From the end of 2000 on, in principle, we had the whole national herd on the base base. 

If you mean in terms of sufficient base quality, it took a little bit 

longer to get this all running. 

Senator TALENT. It sounds like from the time you got the contract to the time the base base was ready, that was about 6 

months. 

Mr. SCHMITZ-HSU. Right. 

Senator TALENT. Then another year or more, so you are talking 

a year and a half, maybe 2 years, to get all of this registered, and 

this was several years after the issue really arose. That is in Switzerland with 1.5 million cows; and the United States with roughly 

100 million. 

There have been some bills proposed in the other house to have 

a 90-day implementation deadline for implementing a system. 

Would you say that was a little bit too ambitious given the size of 

the task here? 

Mr. SCHMITZ-HSU. It sounds to me very ambitious. You have to 

consider—it is for the U.S., it is really very urgent, and it was also 

for Switzerland. It took a long time, but I heard the figure that you 

lose $10 billion per year, so, with this ban that you have on your 

beef, and if you convert that to our hearing today, then, I must say 

we have, during the just the hearing here, we have, what, $2 million already lost again to the agriculture industry in the U.S., so 

there is an urgent need to proceed forward. 

It is important, and that was also once the whole process was set 

up that we quickly had a base system implemented, and we could 

show, then, to the neighboring countries that we have done now 

something, that we are building up a base base, actually, a whole 

animal tracking solution which fulfills the international requirements. 

Senator TALENT. You mentioned gaining experience before making major investments. I really appreciate, for the record, these lessons learned and would commend it to anybody who is considering 

how this process is going to be done. Would you say that your system evolved over time toward one particular kind of tracking device 

because it was better than others? In other words, I guess what I 

am sensing is that you consulted, you pulled together this base 

base. You began implementing it. While you were implementing 

the process, you were trying to learn from the process as you implemented it and did it step-by-step and concentrated on what was 

practical rather than sort of coming up with a plan whole cloth and 

then just implementing that without regard to the facts of impleVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:56 Sep 16, 2004 Jkt 092570 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\92570.TXT TOSHD PsN: TOSH
26

mentation. That is a leading question, we lawyers say, but it seems 

to me that is how you did it. 

Mr. SCHMITZ-HSU. The basic functionality is still the same. We 

have not changed on that. The principle is still the same. We have 

added certain services; we have added certain functions; we have 

especially increased the possibility to communicate electronically 

with the central base base; that is a central issue, also, to gain acceptance. I would just like to stress, again, the problem will not be 

the central base base, the computer system, and so on. The problem is to get base quality, to get the acceptance of the producers 

to participate. 

The fancy system does not help if you do not get the base in as 

you need. There, you need to focus, and there, we made a lot of experience and learned many lessons, and I would have been happy 

if I would have been able to share at that time with somebody else 

who had made this experience already. 

Senator TALENT. You mentioned several times how important it 

was for it to be user-friendly, for the processes to be simple and understandable. I guess the idea is to—tell me if I am wrong—is to 

create out there in the country among our ranchers and our cattlemen a sense that they are comfortable with this system; they know 

how to use it; it will work well for them, so you are not dealing 

with a lot of passive resistance all the time. Am I understanding 

you correctly? 

Mr. SCHMITZ-HSU. Yes, that is an important issue, and we got a 

sufficient base quality, a real good base quality, only after some rewards for good notification were given to the producers and some 

penalties if they did not comply with the system. We have a mandatory system, not a voluntary system. 

Senator TALENT. You have a mandatory system that most people 

feel comfortable with and are happy to participate in. That is a 

good way of saying it. 

Mr. SCHMITZ-HSU. Right, it took awhile, but it was raising more 

and more—conviction that something has to be done, producers had 

from the very beginning. Actually participate and do the work, and 

so, that is an additional effort for them. We do not deny that. Finally, when they saw the system was good for something, and they 

can access their base, they can get the inventory, they can see that 

the base they enter for the national base base is actually also going 

to their breeding association, so they do not have to make the notifications two times, that is a crucial part. 

Our system, our central base base is not on top of the existing 

base bases we had already but is on the bottom. It is the base. 

That is why there was quite a lot of opposition at the beginning, 

and people wanted to make it different; different breeding associations wanted, hey, make a national system that incorporates our 

system. Actually, fortunately, the Federal Government decided, no, 

we implement a new base base which will be the basis for the other 

services. 

Very quickly, also, driven by the pressure of the producers, because they do not want to make notification several times, then, actually, the other agricultural organizations, they were somehow 

driven and forced to take the base from the central base base. 

27

Then, there were additional services provided to these agricultural 

organizations, so that actually fulfills their need. 

Senator TALENT. Just a couple more questions. I just thought the 

opportunity to have you here to get as much information as we can 

from you too valuable, really, to pass up or to minimize. You mentioned—I am going to read this—from lessons learned: allow the 

maximum value to be made from the base collected; regulate access 

rights to protect the rights of the base owner but impose no more 

base access restrictions than really necessary; make sure the benefit goes to the owners of the base, that means to the end users; 

involve third parties such as supermarket chains early in the process in order to add to the value for the end users; reward the good 

end users. 

Now, there have been two issues that have been raised, one by 

Senator Harkin, and he is reflecting concerns of producers and others producers have raised that this lesson learned would implicate. 

One is I know our producers are very concerned about confidentiality. If we went out and just said oh, you know what? This stuff 

is going to be available, and it is really going to be good for niche 

marketing your products and all this stuff, they would initially, 

anyway, say wait a minute, we are not making our operations an 

open book. 

The other that Senator Harkin raised, we do not want private, 

big supermarket chains sort of driving what the requirements of 

this base bank are. Now, did your ranchers have the same issues? 

If they did, what did you do to accommodate those issues? 

Mr. SCHMITZ-HSU. See, the producers, they had exactly the same 

concerns as your producers here have. Confidentiality, oh, this 

goes—does the base go to the IRS and so on, all of these issues 

came up. 

What we have, the regulation for base access, is we make a clear 

distinction between animal base and premises base; say, the animal base, that goes with the animal, and the new owner of the animal, he gets all the information, where this animal has been before, including the address of the previous owners. For this animal 

here, whereas, how many animals a premises has, that is something confidential, and that is only given out to those when the 

owner of—the actual producers give the consent that this has to be 

done. 

We had to implement on our system really elaborate base access 

functionality to cover these rules. That fulfills, now, the need of the 

producers also, so if they make some—participate in some kind of 

supermarket chain program, they can authorize, by themselves, the 

supermarket chain, OK, I give you the right that you can access 

my base. Then, I do not need to tell you about my animals. You 

can go directly from the central base base. 

Senator TALENT. Thank you, Dr. Schmitz. I appreciate that testimony. 

Let me ask you, Dr. Marsh, do you want to comment on what 

you have heard regarding the Swiss program, what you think we 

could take from it? If you just have any comment on things that 

they are doing in Switzerland that maybe would not work here or 

would work especially well? I would sure like to hear it if you have 

28

any comments. You look like you were listening as intently as I 

was. 

Mr. MARSH. Yes, it was fascinating testimony, and I appreciate 

getting an opportunity to hear him. Even though we are geographically thousands of miles apart, I do not think we are on this issue 

and the challenges that we meet, be met with it, issues of confidentiality, who owns the base, where it goes, making sure that the 

technology that is used, make sure that the marketplace can still 

function and certainly State to State in our situation and potentially internationally. 

I am intrigued by what is there. I am aware that others have reviewed this process, and it is important that we take those lessons 

learned. It is not something that is going to happen overnight. It 

is going to take awhile to put it in place. There have been questions about voluntary versus mandatory. I guess for me and our 

State, I am not sure what you would mandate just yet. We are not 

quite to that point yet, to say this is what we want, and that is 

why this is valuable that we have these species-specific working 

groups working under the USAIP to pound out some of those specific details so that they are not lost in the process. 

Again, the number of issues and the lessons learned there are 

valuable for us, and we can take heed. 

Senator TALENT. Do you have a gut sense of what a realistic 

timeframe would be? 

Mr. MARSH. I am intrigued by Under Secretary Hawk’s remarks 

that with regard to the premise allocator that that could be available by the end of this Federal fiscal year. Indeed, there are a number of base base systems in the States that have been used for animal health purposes, whether it is for brucellosis, tuberculosis, 

pseudo-rabies, et cetera; that there are base bases out there that 

have some of this base that could be transferred into the process. 

I am aware of some States, Senator Nelson’s State, for example, 

where you can go online and register a site. There will be those 

who will do that. That is a good tool, but I harken back to the 

United Kingdom again. Foot and mouth did not start in their major 

commercial operations; it started in a garbage feeder. At some 

point, you have to go out and get the balance of them, where those 

premises are located, and that will take some time, and that has 

been indicated in Dr. Schmitz’s testimony as well. 

It is important that we take a look at the processes that are in 

place. Our neighbor to the north in Michigan, for example, has 

been using RFID for several years, combatting their tuberculosis 

problem. There are lessons learned there in country; there are lessons learned from some of the others; FAIR and other processes are 

in-State, are in the country, rather, and if we are careful in evaluating those, then, we will not make the same mistakes twice. 

Senator TALENT. Well, I have kept you two a long time, and I am 

grateful for that. We covered a lot of good issues. We do have another panel. Thank you, Dr. Schmitz; thank you, Dr. Marsh, for 

being here. 

Oh, I am sorry, Ben, did you——

Senator NELSON. No, no, that is OK. 

Senator TALENT. The third panel can come on up, then. 

29

Senator TALENT. Our third panel is being seated, and I will, if 

Senator Nelson would like, would love to have him introduce the 

witness from Nebraska, and then, I will introduce the other witnesses. 

Senator NELSON. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I appreciate so much the courtesy of being able to do this. It is 

really a pleasure for me to be able to introduce Joy Philippi from 

Bruning, Nebraska. She is a family farmer with 2,000 head of 

nursery hog operation, with that operation working with a local 

producer. She serves on the National Pork Producers Council 

board. She has been involved with the Nebraska pork producers for 

10 years, the past-president in 2000. She serves on the species subgroup for swine on the USAIP working group. She is chairman of 

the NPPC Committee on Animal Health and Food Security, involved with the Nebraska State Group on Animal ID, and as I said, 

in her spare time, she also farms. 

We appreciate very much her presence here today and her support in the past for our efforts to deal with agricultural issues of 

all kinds but particularly to help us understand, from the point of 

view of a pork producer, what is involved with animal identification, and I hope that you will be able to enlighten us—I hope to 

be able to stay here for a period—on what animal ID licensing 

could involve with respect to the small to medium size producers. 

Joy, thank you for being here, and thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator TALENT. I will introduce the other three witnesses, and 

then, we will start with Mr. John and just go from that way to that 

way, because that is how have it down on my paper. 

We thank all of you for coming here, and, as Senator Harkin 

said, it is very important that we hear from people who really are 

doing this and will have to do it, so I want you to tell us everything 

you think we need to know. With that in mind, so that there is 

enough time to ask questions, if you could, you do not have to read 

your whole written statement; if you want to give a summary of 

it, that would be fine as well. 

Mr. Mike John, who is Vice President of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and is from Columbia, Missouri; Mike, 

thank you for coming; Mr. Bob Lehfeldt, of the American Sheep Industry Association from Lavina, Montana? 

Mr. LEHFELDT. Lavina. 

Senator TALENT. Lavina, I am sorry, and Senator Baucus referred to Bob before, and Ron Ostberg, who is a Montana Farmers 

Union member from Scobey, Montana, is with us today. 

Mike, thanks for coming. You and I have discussed this privately, 

but I wanted everybody to have the benefit of your wisdom, so 

please give us your statement. 

STATEMENT OF MIKE JOHN, VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL 

CATTLEMEN’S BEEF ASSOCIATION, COLUMBIA, MISSOURI 

Mr. JOHN. Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony to 

you today on behalf of the State affiliates of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. I appreciate being able to discuss animal 

identification, an issue of great interest and concern for cattle producers across the country. 

30

The recent discovery of BSE in a Canadian cow in Washington 

has given this discussion a tremendous sense of urgency. Animal 

identification is a tool that can be used in conjunction with our animal health infrastructure to identify and isolate animals and premises that have been associated with animal disease. It is not a substitute for this infrastructure. NCBA will oppose efforts to pay for 

an animal identification system by cutting existing animal health 

infrastructure. 

Animal identification is a confusing and complicated topic which 

has endured several years of debate to come to a consensus, and 

there is still much work to do. To forge broad consensus, NCBA 

worked with more than 70 organizations and over 400 individuals 

to draft what is known as the United States Animal Identification 

Plan or USAIP. As a matter of NCBA policy, we support the 

USAIP as the foundation of the national identification system and 

support its ongoing work. 

The USAIP focuses on establishing technology standards so the 

system is uniform, workable and consistent. USAIP establishes 

radio frequency identification or RFID as the currently preferred 

identification method. RFID has been readily adopted by livestock 

producers. Adoption of the RFID standard within USAIP acknowledges the existing use of this technology. 

Full and complete implementation of USAIP is estimated at $545 

million over a 6-year period. The USAIP estimate includes the information system, base collection infrastructure and identification 

devices. Clearly, this amount is a tremendous outlay of resources 

for any party. A potential funding approach could be the Federal 

Government paying for establishment and approval of the standards, the Federal and State Governments partnering on infrastructure installation, and the Federal and State Governments costsharing with producers on the identification devices. 

An effective animal identification program would provide the 

traceability needed to contain, isolate and eradicate the spread of 

an animal disease that has the ability to disrupt the livelihood of 

producers. The creation of a system for these purposes should not 

result in the invasion of a producer’s privacy. Therefore, NCBA believes that any information provided by producers for the animal 

identification system should be exempt from release under FOIA; 

additionally, the Privacy Act protects private and personal base 

from release without the written consent of that party that provided the information. 

The question of mandatory versus voluntary should revolve 

around how best to achieve the level of participation needed to 

make the system effective. In addition, privacy concerns, costs to 

producers and the appropriate implementation plan will have as 

much bearing on the success of the program as will whether it is 

mandatory or voluntary. 

The USAIP calls for initially starting with a premise identification system then moving forward with individual animal identification. It is critical that a premise allocation system be defined soon 

that meets USAIP guidelines and recognizes the interstate nature 

of livestock movements. It is extremely important that implementation of the program be in step with how marketed and moved. We 

31

must take into consideration constraints that exist at livestock 

markets, processing facilities and feed yards. 

Additionally, many cattle are already identified through existing 

marketing and management programs. If the systems in which 

these cattle are already identified are consistent with the standards of the USAIP, then these systems should be available to provide base to USDA for the purposes of producer participation in the 

identification system. 

It is important that there be international harmonization in animal identification standards and systems. Our five-nations working 

group is in agreement that there should be harmonization in our 

animal identification systems. NCBA supports the adoption of the 

RFID standard within USAIP. However, should Congress act on an 

identification bill, no statutory provision should be included which 

establishes the RFI technology standard. Keeping the technology 

standard within the regulatory responsibility of USDA maintains 

the flexibility needed to adopt new technology. 

USDA has the authority under the Animal Health Protection Act 

passed in the 2002 Farm Bill to implement an identification system. NCBA will monitor the implementation of an identification 

program by USDA and, as previously stated, NCBA is supportive 

of an industry-implemented program that is accessed by USDA for 

animal disease issues only. 

We are confident that the current path we are on will result in 

the development of an effective animal identification and 

traceability program for not only the cattle industry but also for all 

animals in agriculture. 

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to testify. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. John can be found in the appendix on page 77.] 

Senator TALENT. Thank you, Mike. 

Ms. Philippi. 

Ms. PHILIPPI. Philippi. 

Senator TALENT. We are ready for your statement. Please go 

ahead. 

STATEMENT OF JOY PHILIPPI, NATIONAL PORK PRODUCERS 

COUNCIL, BRUNING, NEBRASKA 

Ms. PHILIPPI. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, 

Senator Nelson, for your kind introduction. We would like to thank 

the Chairman and the Committee for holding this hearing today, 

and we would like to ask that our complete written statement is 

submitted for the record. 

In recent months, it has become clear that the issue of a national 

animal identification system has become increasingly more important to animal health officials, livestock producers and consumers. 

Developing and implementing a national identification system is 

far more complicated than simply identifying every animal at birth. 

The pork industry considers a national animal ID system part of 

protecting the nation’s critical food and agriculture infrastructure 

in case of an animal disease outbreak or intentional or unintentional introduction of a pathogen or toxin. 

We believe that most Americans now better understand the importance of animal health in protecting food security and safety in 

32

this country. We also believe that they are willing to support the 

development of an affordable, accurate and sustainable mandatory 

national animal ID system. I would like to focus my comments 

today on three areas: first, the pork industry’s current mandatory 

swine identification system; ways to enhance the current swine system; and finally comment on where the pork industry sees outstanding issues in further developing the national animal ID system. 

Today, we have five categories of mandatory ID for swine in 

interstate commerce: one, individual ID for all replacement breeding swine; two, individual ID for all breeding swine at commingling 

or slaughter; three, ID of feeder swine; four, market swine identified back to their owner at federally inspected plants; and, five, 

feeder swine movements across the state lines within a production 

system based on written health plans and production records. 

The current interstate swine ID system has been in place since 

1988, and we recognize there are several areas where enhancement 

is needed. First, the back tag system currently is being used to 

identify culled breeding swine has a low tag retention rate of about 

15 to 20 percent. This retention rate is the result of an identification system that does not meet the species-specific needs in regard 

to handling the animals on the way to market. 

When a national premises ID system is implemented, it would be 

possible to apply premises ID tags to our breeding animals, thereby 

identifying the source farm. Second, the identification of market 

hogs back to their last premises instead of the owners’ mailbox will 

result in a more rapid and accurate traceback to the suspect 

premise. Improved accuracy could facilitate further traceback to origin premises because today, generally, hogs move in lots. Recordkeeping in our industry is by and large based on lot and group 

movements. 

Today, as we speak, the U.S. pork industry is holding its annual 

business meeting in Atlanta, Georgia. We expect at least one public 

policy resolution to be presented in support of a mandatory national animal ID system and expressing support for the U.S. Animal Identification Plan or USAIP. The USAIP process has been underway since April 2002. Over 109 stakeholders representing 70 industry organizations have had input into the USAIP. 

Let us be clear on what the USAIP is and is not. It simply defines the standards and framework for implementing and maintaining a national animal ID system for all of U.S. livestock. It includes standards for, one, national premises numbering system; 

two, individual group and lot animal numbering systems; and, 

three, performance standards for ID devices. 

NPPC believes that the USAIP represents a blueprint for moving 

forward. We acknowledge that it does not have all of the answers 

and that there are outstanding questions. I would like to highlight 

five of those outstanding issues that require further development, 

careful consideration and possible Congressional action. 

One, should the system be a mandatory or a voluntary system? 

Two, how do we protect and maintain the confidentiality of producer base? Three, how do we recognize the importance of speciesspecific differences? Four, how do we maintain technology flexibility; and, finally, five, funding: Who is going to pay for what? 

33

The first issue is about mandatory versus voluntary system. 

Ours has been mandatory since 1988. From a disease management 

perspective, we believe the system must be a mandatory program. 

Otherwise, the ability to effectively manage diseases will be compromised. The second issue is about how to protect the confidentiality and security of the producer base. This issue of confidentiality has not been effectively addressed by either the USAIP or 

by USDA. We need to sort out whether USDA has clear authority 

to protect the confidentiality and security of the producers’ base. If 

USDA does not, then Congress must assure that the Department 

has the appropriate authority. 

Producers are concerned about who will have access to their vital 

economic and trade information, and until these issues are addressed, pork producers are willing to record the base locally but 

unwilling to report it nationally. 

A third issue relates to species-specific implementation plans. 

There are vast differences between the species, including the diseases of concern, production practices, record keeping, animal 

movements, animal value. The cattle industry has embraced electronic ID, eartags or RFID as the identification device of choice for 

their species. RFID makes sense based on the value of a single bovine coupled with the frequent commingling of animals of different 

owners. RFID at $2 a tag does make sense on an animal that is 

valued at $1,200 versus a $90 animal. 

If cost of identification is based on breeding females, a cow has one calf per year, and therefore, the cost per cow is $2 per year. 

On the other hand, a sow will have 22 to 24 pigs a year, and pork 

producers will face identification costs between $44 and $48 per 

sow per year. That is why group and lot ID is a cost-effective identification system to swine. 

The fourth issue is related to technology flexibility. A system allowing species differences must allow for technology flexibility. 

New devices, methodologies and technologies come out every day, 

and I am sure that the committee has seen many technologies over 

the past several months. USDA must establish a national base 

platform for animal health management purposes and have the 

marketplace meet those standards. This not only encourages innovation and competition; it also drives down the cost to pork producers. 

The fifth and final issue I wish to highlight is the issue of funding. Who pays for what? We believe that the national premises 

identification system is the basis for a national animal ID system, 

and it is a Federal responsibility. We also believe that USDA needs 

to develop the information system to allow animal movement base 

to be captured, stored, and accessed when needed whenever those 

base have anything to do with animal health management purposes. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee, I 

have outlined why the National Pork Producers Council supports 

a mandatory national identification system. I would like to thank 

you again for holding this hearing, and I would be pleased to answer any questions at the appropriate time. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Philippi can be found in the appendix on page 83] 

34

Senator TALENT. Thank you, Joy. That is very useful testimony. 

Bob, why do you not go on ahead? I will tell the witnesses, we 

have been notified we have votes starting at 4 o’clock, and we can 

stay a little bit after 4 o’clock, because the first vote will probably 

be—we will have an extra few minutes to get over there to vote, 

but we are coming up against a deadline. 

Bob, go ahead and go, please. 

STATEMENT OF BOB LEHFELDT, AMERICAN SHEEP INDUSTRY 

ASSOCIATION, LAVINA, MONTANA 

Mr. LEHFELDT. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, on 

behalf of the nation’s sheep industry, I greatly appreciate your 

leadership in conducting this hearing regarding development of an 

animal identification program. 

I am a sheep producer from Lavina, Montana, and today represent my state association and the American Sheep Industry Association. I can personally attest that livestock identification was a 

hot issue at our national board of director meeting in late January. 

ASI has been involved with the USAIP since initiation and intends 

to provide a sheep-specific ID plan to USDA APHIS this spring. 

Our industry has a national animal health program in place. 

That includes a identification system, namely, the Scrapie Eradication Program. We have over 50,000 sheep operations nationwide, 

already enrolled with a premise identification and millions of identification tags distributed. This program, implemented by regulation in August of 2001, provides a basis for our view and we believe 

a model for fitting the sheep industry into a national animal ID 

system. 

We approve national policy at our board meeting, and I believe 

these points are important for discussion. One, the cost of identification supplies and devices should be provided by the public sector. A national ID system for livestock should not duplicate our National Scrapie Eradication Program ID requirements. Transition 

into a livestock system must be planned and announced well in advance, with supplies available through a well-organized distribution channel. 

We have a wide variance of production systems for sheep in the 

U.S., and the ID program should accommodate all, including group 

movement of animals through feeder and slaughter channels. A national ID system should contribute to the management, marketing 

and business needs of the US sheep industry. A national ID system 

for sheep should be thoroughly field tested before implementation 

to demonstrate that the technology is compatible with normal industry operations. 

Implementation of this system should not economically burden 

any sector of the U.S. sheep industry. The system ought to be thoroughly reviewed and field-tested prior to implementation. This includes the base base function, which needs to be provided and 

maintained by the Federal Government. We must recognize the 

needs of the entire industry involved from auction markets to processors as well as ranchers such as myself. 

It is important to remember on the cost side that cost of an ID 

on a $125 lamb is much larger than that on a market steer worth 

many more times. An additional item that is weighing heavily in 

35

our sheep ID discussion is the need to identify sheep and lambs by 

lot or group, similar to our feeder and slaughter lambs today under 

our Scrapie Eradication Program requirements. Such a system 

makes more sense when hundreds of lambs per truckload are moving through the feed lot and packing plant. 

Key issues that I believe must be addressed on the sheep ID 

group includes procedures for lost tags, compatibility of all ID tags 

and associated equipment on a national basis, and privacy of base 

collected by a national animal identification program. 

Thank you, and I would be pleased to answer questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lehfeldt can be found in the appendix on page 93.] 

Senator TALENT. Thank you, Bob. 

Mr. Ostberg. 

STATEMENT OF RONALD OSTBERG, MONTANA FARMERS 

UNION MEMBER, SCOBEY, MONTANA 

Mr. OSTBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; also, I would like to 

thank or give a special thanks to Senator Max Baucus for his kind 

comments in introducing us earlier here today. 

For the record, Mr. Chairman, and Senator Nelson, I am Ron 

Ostberg. I am a cattle producer in the west central part of Montana. I can also say that I come from a farming and ranching family; that we have had somebody from our family live on that land 

for almost 100 years. My granddad on my dad’s side actually filed 

for homestead on the home place there on September 8, 1909. We 

are getting close to that. That is quite an accomplishment as well. 

I am also here today representing the National——

Senator TALENT. Maybe you could have us out for the 100th anniversary. 

Mr. OSTBERG. I would love to. 

Senator TALENT. When we get back from Switzerland, we 

will——

[Laughter.] 

Mr. OSTBERG. Maybe I could just go with you to Switzerland, and 

we could work that out. 

Senator TALENT. We would celebrate there, yes. 

Mr. OSTBERG. I am also here representing and testifying on behalf of the National Farmers Union and the Montana Farmers 

Union as well, where I am a lifetime member. The National Farmers Union is meeting today in my home state as we speak. They 

are conducting their 102d annual convention there, and one of the 

issues that they are working on is this specific issue here. As soon 

as they do get that policy identified and finalized, they will be 

sharing that with the committee, Mr. Chairman, and the Members 

of Congress. 

I would like to highlight five of the major concerns that NFU and 

I have relative to the many animal identification proposals being 

considered and explain why these concerns must be addressed before any national animal ID program is further pursued or implemented. 

No. 1 is the ability of an identification program to enhance both 

food safety and animal health, and there has been some discussion, 

and it is great to be able to listen to all of the comments that were 

36

previously offered here today; there was some discussion specifically between Senator Harkin and Under Secretary Hawks in regard to how far the program was really going to go. 

We talked about animal diseases, and then, Senator Harkin 

brought up the concern that was raised to him from Wal-Mart. 

Now, I would guess, and maybe I should not do that, but I have 

been known to do this before and get into trouble, but I would 

guess that Wal-Mart’s concern would probably be food safety. That 

is something that the Committee needs to take into account when 

you look at the total programming here and not just address animal health issues, some parts of industry are looking for food safety, and I know consumers are looking for food safety. 

I will try to go through these a little quick here. Otherwise, I will 

not be redundant. Everybody else has probably touched on some of 

the same concerns. The second issue that I would like to address 

is the cost burden of implementing and maintaining ID systems on 

livestock producers. That one has been talked about quite a bit; 

again, I would like to relate my comments to some of the other discussion that was held here earlier today. 

Dr. Schmitz talked about the program that he had there in Switzerland, and that the and Senator Baucus talked about the branding program that we have in Montana. If I remember correctly, 

there is not too many states that do have a branding program, and 

I have been told that there are maybe 14 states in the United 

States that actually have a branding program. They tell us that 

Montana probably has the best branding identification system in 

the nation. 

The program that I use out there right now on my farm and 

ranch is that I do brand all of my animals. That gives an ownership identification to those animals. I also eartag all of my animals. 

My eartags identify the lineal descent of the animals. I can look at 

a calf out there; I know immediately who the mother of that calf 

is. I can go back to the record books, and I can tell you who the 

grandmother and the great-grandmother was of that cow. 

We do have that information there, and I would be more than 

happy to share that with any program if that would be something 

that they would care to work into or visit with them in regards to 

setting up something like that. 

Going through this here pretty quick, in regards to the costs, I 

do want to touch a little bit on that. It has already been said, but 

I would like to say it again that the livestock producers are the 

ones who are going to be on the front lines on this program’s initiation. We are concerned today that a disproportionate amount of 

the cost associated with an animal ID system will fall on the producers, particularly the small producers, in a way that makes them 

less positioned to remain competitive in the marketplace. 

This was talked about earlier, but I would like to mention this 

again: according to the USDA, a livestock identification system is 

estimated to cost from $70 million to $120 million per year, and 

that is considerably more than the $33 million proposed in the 

2005 fiscal ag budget. We believe that it is appropriate for the public to bear a substantial portion of both the development costs as 

well as those associated with the day-to-day management of the 

program. 

37

The third issue that I would like to raise, the third concern, is 

the confidentiality of proprietary information that is collected. 

There has been a lot been said about that one already, so I will try 

not to be redundant on that. I do not think that I have any points 

here that—you do have my written comments, too, Mr. Chairman, 

so they are in that. 

The fourth issue that we raise is the producer liability protection 

issue. Assuming an animal identification system does in fact enhance our capacity to detect and control those commodities and 

products which may have adverse food safety, human or animal 

health implications, the issue of legal liability must be considered. 

It should be expected that the use of a traceback system will 

prompt parties to attempt to establish that any products which do 

not meet safety and health standards resulted from actions taken 

by others within the food system. 

Because the potential costs of identified food safety and health 

issues can be significant and will tend to increase as products move 

through the food chain, we are concerned about the process that 

will be utilized in establishing any liability and the potential financial obligations a process could create for market participants. Our 

final concern, and that one has not been voiced here yet today, and 

that is the relationship of an animal ID program to country of origin labeling, and I am sure that you have never heard of that one 

before. Just kidding. 

Actually, we feel that mandatory country of origin labeling, as directed in the 2002 Farm Bill, should be immediately implemented. 

We believe that Secretary Veneman has the Congressional authority and discretion to implement this program in a common sense 

that bears minimum burden and cost on producers, processors and 

retailers. 

Despite the 2-year delay of implementation of country of origin 

labeling included in the fiscal year 2005 omnibus appropriations 

bill, the law still requires USDA to move forward in promulgating 

a final rule by September 30 of this year. After the labeling program has been implemented and at the point an animal identification program is up and running, we believe it is necessary to coordinate the two programs so that U.S. livestock producers will not 

find themselves paying the bill for the benefit of processors and retailers without achieving any market benefits. 

We would like to see the information gathered through a national animal identification program maintained and utilized to 

augment mandatory country of origin labeling at the retail level. It 

is our hope that the discussion of implementing an animal identification program does not delay implementing the already mandated country of origin labeling law. 

American agricultural producers want a labeling program. American consumers want a labeling program. When the two programs 

are coupled, consumers will be better able to select food products 

with the knowledge that new steps have been taken to strengthen 

our capacity to identify and contain food pathogens or other food 

safety factors prior to the products reaching the retail market. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, the National Farmers Union and I ask 

that full consideration be given to all of our concerns before any 

legislative or administrative action is taken to implement an aniVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:56 Sep 16, 2004 Jkt 092570 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\92570.TXT TOSHD PsN: TOSH
38

mal identification program. I would like to thank you again for the 

opportunity that I have had here to testify before you today. We 

both, the National Farmers Union and myself, look forward to 

working with members of this Subcommittee and other Members of 

Congress as development of an identification system moves forward. 

That includes a trip to Switzerland, and I would be happy to answer any questions that you might have. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ostberg can be found in the appendix on page 96.] 

Senator TALENT. Thank you, Mr. Ostberg. I thank you for summarizing your testimony and thank all of the witnesses for coming 

such a long way to give us the benefit of their practical experience, 

and I will recognize Senator Nelson. 

Senator NELSON. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I too thank our 

witnesses. This is obviously a very important issue, and it has to 

be resolved. Clearly, the lost opportunity and the lost costs or lost 

income from the BSE incident is an indication that we have to proceed to do something to improve not only animal health, but, as 

you say, food safety as well. Credibility in the world is important 

to that, but it is always about who pays. We understand that. 

While the lost costs and lost income from the BSE incident probably far outweighs what the cost of this program is, nobody wants 

to minimize what the cost is, nor do we want to ignore who has 

to pay for it. We need to find a solution to that so that it is fair, 

not disproportionate and ultimately delivers a better product to the 

public so that we can all enjoy the commerce, and the ag industry 

can benefit from it as well. 

Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Thank you, Joy, particularly. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator TALENT. I thank the Senator for his remarks. 

They have started the series of votes, so Senator Nelson may 

need to go. I am going to continue the hearing just for a couple 

more minutes. I cannot pass up the opportunity to ask you all to 

comment on a couple of things anyway. 

Let me find Dr. Schmitz’s testimony here. Yes. I have consistently heard concerns, which I can certainly understand and, in fact, 

share, about confidentiality. Mr. Ostberg shared it and made the 

point, that it was redundant, because others had said the same 

thing. I do not know if you all were listening to Dr. Schmitz’s testimony about what was going on in Switzerland, but there is an interesting point that he has raised that we are going to have to confront at some point. 

He says allow the maximum value to be made from the base collected; regulate access rights to protect the rights of the base owners but impose no more base access restrictions than really necessary. Make sure the benefits go to the owners of the base; that 

means to the end users. The way it works in Switzerland, I take 

it, is that he mentioned breeding associations have access with the 

permission of the producers. If you have a relationship worked out 

with some kind of an end buyer or supermarket or something, they 

may be allowed to have access to facilitate that relationship. 

39

They seem to have opened it up there a little bit more than we 

anticipate opening this up or than we are comfortable doing at this 

stage. Let me ask two questions relating to the base base and just 

get your comments on it. First of all, are you and the industries 

you represent more comfortable with the Government having access to base that is largely owned and operated by a private entity 

or association, as I understand it is in Switzerland, or vice versa. 

In other words, would you be more comfortable with the Government having access to base managed by a private association or 

ownership, or would you be more comfortable if there were private 

owners that had access to Government-run base and—and this relates to that second question there—how comfortable, having heard 

what Dr. Schmitz said, how open are you to that situation where 

if once we developed this system, if a producer gives permission, allowing the access to the base by a breeding association or a retail 

buyer or something? 

I was not marvelously clear with that, but you all are intelligent, 

and maybe you got it enough to comment on it. Would anybody like 

to share? 

Mr. Ostberg, please, go ahead. 

Mr. OSTBERG. Mr. Chairman, Senator Talent, I would love to address that one. 

One of the main concerns that I have, and I guess this one might 

not be too hard to guess and probably would speak for a lot of others would as well, would be when it comes to the pocketbook is how 

the confidentiality issue concerns us. Dr. Schmitz made the comment in regards to information becoming available to IRS. IRS 

knows more than enough about me already, and I do not think I 

could tell them anything else, including the numbers of cattle I 

have. They already know that. I do not have any concerns in that 

regard. 

Where I do have the concern, again, is back to the pocketbook, 

and that is when it comes to marketing these animals. We have 

seen this information or this kind of information used against us 

in the market prices that we receive; no matter what the commodity is, we have seen this a number of different times. Your 

question, Mr. Chairman, was specifically in regard to whether we 

let the Federal Government address this issue or private enterprise. 

Senator TALENT. Just generally, if you heard Dr. Schmitz’s description of how they have allowed access for certain purposes with 

permission, which is one of the ways that they make this pay for 

itself; in other words, this helps facilitate transactions, so I know 

you have all just heard it for the first time. I read it, but I have 

really just heard it for the first time. You may not want to comment, but if you have it, I would love to hear it. 

Mr. OSTBERG. My comments on that, Mr. Chairman, would be 

that either way we go, even with the Government, the information 

is public. Private enterprise’s is public. There was some discussion 

earlier here today that addressed the concern or the request, actually, that was conveyed to the committee here that they come up 

with some specific language that addresses the proprietary information and the withholding of that information anyplace, and 

again, I suppose that we could include some language in there that 

40

would provide for, yes, if we have the consent of the individual producers. 

Now, depending again on how far you go with this ID system 

here, and to cover the food safety issue, you need to go much further than just from the producer to the processor. There are too 

many people and too many other interests out there that have an 

interest further down the food chain. You need to address that concern to other parts of industry as well. 

Thanks for the question, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator TALENT. Mike. 

Mr. JOHN. I would like to address that just briefly, Senator. 

It depends on the perspective that you take on what the goal of 

the ID system is, and if it is animal health and disease related, 

then probably a combination of private and Government-type participation would be a more reasonable direction than just saying it 

is going to be one way or the other. I would say as far as keeping 

costs out of the system that if there can be a competitive component in the free market system to deal with managing the production and the communication between the segments that we will 

probably see it offered at a lower cost and maybe a more efficient 

direction than having it all contained in a centralized Government 

base base. 

As it relates to analysis for tracking animals and isolating an 

animal disease, obviously, the Government is going to have to have 

access to that base in some manner, and good science will decide 

whether that means it comes from a single base base with just the 

key components of that ID or whether it is going to come from a 

series of private base bases. 

As far as the components of communicating between the segments on the things that add value to animal agriculture, those 

need to be kept privately. 

Senator TALENT. OK; yes. 

Ms. PHILIPPI. If I could add just a little comment there, too, I 

have been in a couple of meetings on this confidentiality discussion, 

and one thing that was brought forward was we do not mind if the 

Government can have access to come back and find where our 

premise is; we do not want that public. Because especially in our 

industry, we have those that would love to know where every hog 

farm is in the United States. 

Senator TALENT. Right. 

Ms. PHILIPPI. We have discussed that at length. The other thing 

is for the animal health issues, we believe the Government needs 

to have access to that. 

Senator TALENT. Yes, I would just keep that in mind, because we 

have all talked about the costs of the systematically emergency, 

and to the extent that with, of course, the permission of producers, 

the system can be involved in adding value, that generates streams 

of income that might help to pay for the system, which, of course, 

we would all like, because, to that extent, neither the taxpayers nor 

the producers have to pay for it. 

That is the first time I have heard of it. I wanted to get your 

comments. 

I would have other questions, but I am told there is about a 

minute and a half left in the first vote, and on the off chance that 

41

for the first time in its history, the Senate closes a vote on time, 

I better get over there to vote. 

I am very grateful, the whole Subcommittee is, to you all for 

coming such a long way and for the great contribution that you 

have made to the hearing, and I will adjourn the hearing now. 

Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 4:16 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(43)

A P P E N D I X

MARCH 4, 2004

44


92570.001
45


92570.002
46


92570.003
47


92570.004
48


92570.005
49


92570.006
50


92570.007
51


92570.008
52


92570.009
53


92570.010
54


92570.011
55


92570.012
56


92570.013
57


92570.014
58


92570.015
59


92570.016
60


92570.017
61


92570.018
62


92570.019
63


92570.020
64


92570.021
65


92570.022
66


92570.023
67


92570.024
68


92570.025
69


92570.026
70


92570.027
71


92570.028
72


92570.029
73


92570.030
74


92570.031
75


92570.032
76


92570.033
77


92570.034
78


92570.035
79


92570.036
80


92570.037
81


92570.038
82


92570.039
83


92570.040
84


92570.041
85


92570.042
86


92570.043
87


92570.044
88


92570.045
89


92570.046
90


92570.047
91


92570.048
92


92570.049
93


92570.050
94


92570.051
95


92570.052
96


92570.053
97


92570.054
98


92570.055
(99)

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

MARCH 4, 2004

100


92570.056
(101)

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

MARCH 4, 2004

102


92570.057
103


92570.058
104

Æ


92570.059