The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“BIOMETRICS--THE TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCEMENT IN ANIMAL IDENTIFICATION” mentioning the U.S. Dept of Agriculture was published in the Senate section on pages S106-S107 on Jan. 21, 2004.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
BIOMETRICS--THE TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCEMENT IN ANIMAL IDENTIFICATION
Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, it has been brought to my attention that the Department of Agriculture has put for comment their rules and regulations on animal identification, in particular beef. It is not unusual that by the time Federal agencies in today's environment get around to issuing their rules and regulations, or by the time Congress passes legislation, our technology has moved so quickly that those provisions become outdated. I am concerned this could be happening with the Department of Agriculture promulgating rules on the radio frequency identification, RFID, tag in United States animal identification. It has an internal code structure that identifies a specific bovine, but if something happens to the tag, there is no way of re-establishing the animal's identification. That is, there is no way of re-establishing the animal's identification unless another form of permanent identification is obtained. That is why it is so important to discuss the use of biometrics in animal verification, and more specifically, to fully explore the use of retinal scanning for identification purposes.
It is my understanding that the rules and regulations may exclude the use of retinal scanning because the rules that the USDA is considering do not address or allow the use of a ``secure permanent identifier,'' or at the least, they could be interpreted to discourage its use. I have personally viewed such retinal scanning technology and believe that it can be a practical way to identify individual animals, or lots of animals, and that this technology should not be put at a disadvantage because of a policy position by the Department of Agriculture.
With the December 23 discovery of a cow infected with bovine spongiform encephalopathy, BSE, the United States faced a real-life test of our animal identification and tracking system. Identification of livestock is very advanced in the United States, but even with our system, it took days to track that BSE-infected cow to Canada.
As part of our efforts to confront, control and eliminate the risk of BSE and to address future animal health emergencies, we should consider putting into place systems that can easily and rapidly identify an animal and tell us where it has been. It must be able to tell us what animals it has been in contact with and where those contacts are now. The system should do this rapidly, securely and without error.
I commend the efforts of the USDA and industry who have been working together for some time to design a national animal identification plan. During the intervening period, new technologies have continued to emerge. As the USDA looks at implementing a national animal identification plan, it is important that we utilize the best of today's technologies. For instance, a primary objective of this plan, as proposed, is to trace any animal within 48 hours. With the technology available to us in this country, we can be looking at systems that can locate animals in minutes--not hours--with great accuracy.
To assure the American public and our export customers that we have not lost track of any animals, the U.S. animal identification plan should allow use of a secure, tamper-resistant image of the animal's retinal vascular pattern that is more unique than a human fingerprint. Retinal scanning identifies the animal, not the identifier. The majority of the other animal identification systems work on the basis of adding an identifier to the animal, such as a visual or electronic marker or tag and then recording that identifier. Identifiers like this can be lost or changed and are not secure. Some estimates put livestock tag loss in the range of 5 to 8 percent--an unacceptable scenario when considering the ramifications that this could mean to the beef industry.
I hope that the national animal identification plan does not preclude the use of new technologies introduced since the plan's inception, especially when these technologies exceed the proposed plan's performance objectives. Several U.S. companies are not waiting for the USDA, but are rapidly installing retinal imaging technology in their own plans to significantly improve their ability to track livestock. These companies should not be forced to also adopt a poorer performing technology because the plan mandates a certain, specific technology.
It is critical that the plan's systems be audited for performance and reliability to verify that they are actually working. We must be able to measure and document how many animals are misidentified or lost. Since retinal scanning technology uses secure, tamper-resistant, retinal patterns, it is currently the only available method against which to verify the performance of any tag-based system.
We should be using the most current technology available--the Global Positioning System, GPS. By linking the Global Positioning System to a secure identifier such as a retinal scan, the time, date, and location of the animal can be captured when the eye is scanned, proving beyond a doubt that ``this animal was at this place at this time.'' Furthermore, the use of GPS coordinates provides USDA with the means to audit and verify the accuracy of any identification numbering system.
The United States has the most competitive livestock sector in the world. But we are at risk of falling behind countries in Europe, South America, as well as Australia and New Zealand, nations that are all exploring more modern technologies for identifying and tracking livestock. Not only can the U.S. take a leadership role in this area, we can take identification and traceability ``off the table'' as a possible trade barrier by introducing technologies that leapfrog existing country requirements.
I would like to close by reminding my colleagues that it is only when you combine identity with location that you get traceability. And in order to build a secure, tamper-resistant system to trace livestock, you must begin with a secure, tamper-resistant identifier. I believe we have the technology to do this in a practical, economically feasible way that will allow United States producers to meet the concerns expressed by our trading partners when managing diseases like mad cow disease. I believe retinal scanning combined with the GPS system can be the most practical option if the policy of this country is to require an identification system of each animal or even for tracing batches of live animals because it is technology that can be easily used in the field and is very accurate, reliable, and precise.
____________________
