CLERK: Amendment Number 4 printed in the Congressional Record, offered by Mr. Paul of Texas.
THE CHAIRMAN: Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Paul and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
PAUL, RON: Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very simple. It says none of the funds made available in this act may be used to implement or administer a National Animal Identification System. I think
PAUL, RON: at this time one thing that this country doesn't need is another huge bureaucracy tracing and following every animal in the country.
PAUL, RON: And that's exactly what this new program will do. It means that each animal will be tagged with a radio frequency ID, all cattle, swine, sheep, goats, horses, poultry, bison, deer, elk, lamas and alpacas.
PAUL, RON: For one, what you own on your farm should be your property, and that information should be private unless there is some type of a subpoena. There is a fourth amendment issue here.
PAUL, RON: Also, there is the issue of just why this is being done. A lot of people have claimed, and I agree with this, that this is a benefit to the large agribusiness farmers, and it is a great detriment to
PAUL, RON: the small farmers who will be burdened with this great effort to accumulate data which will be of benefit to some private big companies.
PAUL, RON: Actually, the database will be controlled by private companies. It will be said that this is a voluntary program, but it has also been told me by the Agriculture Department that if it isn't 100
PAUL, RON: percent agreed to by the year 2008, it will become mandatory. So it's a little bit of 1984 newspeak about exactly how voluntary it is.
PAUL, RON: But we certainly don't need this type of program. We already have plenty of programs that trace and monitor movement. There's health requirements and brands and all the other efforts. This, to me, is
PAUL, RON: a bureaucratic boondoggle that we don't need.
PAUL, RON: I would like to reserve the balance of my time but at this time I would like to yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from Colorado.
THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for a minute and a half.
HEFLEY, JOEL: Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I come from cattle country out in Colorado. I can tell you that one of the things that has gotten our cattle producers worked up more than
HEFLEY, JOEL: anything in recent times is this animal identification program. They are very, very worried about it.
HEFLEY, JOEL: The feeling is that it is going to take the small producer and put them absolutely out of business. The initial estimates for a national ID program range from $122 million to $550 million, and who
HEFLEY, JOEL: will be responsible for that? USDA? The producer? The packer? Again, we don't know, because we have not defined the range and scope of the program.
HEFLEY, JOEL: The Australian Beef Association condemns their mandatory ID program because it is the farmers and the ranchers that have been forced to shoulder the burden. We can understand the need to deal with
HEFLEY, JOEL: the Mad Cow problem, but at the same time, the idea that the possibility that every animal you have on a farm, including your chickens, your horses, and all of the animals, would have to be
HEFLEY, JOEL: identified by some kind of an electronic means is something that just doesn't make any sense at all.
HEFLEY, JOEL: We have spent about $86 million on it already. I think that we ought to go back to the committee and reconsider this. And at this time, I would hope that we would not put any money into it whatsoever
HEFLEY, JOEL: and I yield back the balance of my time.
THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman yields back the balance of his time. The gentleman from Texas reserves the balance
THE CHAIRMAN: Who seeks time in opposition?
KINGSTON, JACK: Mr. Chairman?
THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from Georgia.
KINGSTON, JACK: I rise in opposition to the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5 minutes.
KINGSTON, JACK: Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 ½ minutes.
KINGSTON, JACK: I certainly appreciate the intent of what the gentlemen are trying to accomplish and I have a lot of sympathy for it, but I oppose the American Farm Bureau at this time and the reason is, we do need
KINGSTON, JACK: to identify those animals who are involved in the food chain for human consumption.
KINGSTON, JACK: Yet, at the same time, because our language, and we worked very closely with the authorizing committee, requires that before it is implemented that we have comments in the Federal Registry which at
KINGSTON, JACK: that time people can weed out those nonessential animals, because I don't want a national bureaucracy knowing about every single animal that I may own or a rancher or a farmer may own.
KINGSTON, JACK: And during that comment period, it certainly would be my intention, and I think most of us on the authorizing and on the appropriating committee, to make sure that what you are saying is correct. So,
KINGSTON, JACK: at this point, I also want to point out that we are delaying any of these funds to be available to the USDA until it publishes the advance notice of proposed rulemaking about the plan. So we are
KINGSTON, JACK: doing everything we can in a public comment period. And with that let me reserve the balance of my time and yield 2 minutes of to the chairman of the authorizing committee, Mr. Goodlatte.
THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for two minutes.
GOODLATTE, BOB: I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding me this time and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
GOODLATTE, BOB: I appreciate the intent of the amendment and the questions that have led to it, the appropriations measure as reported contains language on animal identification that should be sufficient to address
GOODLATTE, BOB: its concerns. Since becoming chairman of the Agricultural Committee, we have conducted five hearings on the national identification, national animal identification system.
GOODLATTE, BOB: It's clear that animal ID has the potential to significantly improve our animal health monitoring system and enhance our ability to respond to an animal health emergency. Unfortunately, many of the
GOODLATTE, BOB: livestock producers I talk with about the USDA's animal ID system, still have questions about cost, liability, regulatory burdens, confidentiality and barriers to commerce that have yet to be addressed.
GOODLATTE, BOB: It is reasonable to expect that an individual producer could look at a USDA document and determine what he would be required to do under either the voluntary program or the mandatory program that will follow on later.
GOODLATTE, BOB: Today, it is simply not possible. The Appropriations Committee has included language in their bill that holds funding until the Secretary of Agriculture publishes an advance notice of proposed
GOODLATTE, BOB: rulemaking outlining how USDA's animal ID system will work. This informal process will provide the detail necessary to have a full and thoughtful debate about animal ID and allow us to find our way
GOODLATTE, BOB: forward with this important public policy initiative.
GOODLATTE, BOB: For those who worry an ANPR might slow down an animal ID implementation, I offer this observation, if USDA is not prepared to quickly answer these fundamental questions about its plans, then USDA is
GOODLATTE, BOB: in no position to be moving forward in any case.
GOODLATTE, BOB: Mr. Paul's amendment has the best of intentions. However, the underlying bill has provided the mechanism to work through the issues he seeks to address and for this reason, I believe his amendment
GOODLATTE, BOB: should be defeated, and I yield back the balance of my time.
THE CHAIRMAN: Gentleman from Texas is recognized.
PAUL, RON: How much time do I have remaining?
THE CHAIRMAN: Each side has 1 ½ minutes.
PAUL, RON: I just want to say that if the gentleman from Georgia does not want another huge bureaucracy, he must support my amendment, because that's what he is going to get and it has already
PAUL, RON: been funded. Even though there is pretense that there is a restraint on funding, it has already been funded, so it is in motion and I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Hostettler.
HOSTETTLER, JOHN: Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Paul amendment. The proposed national animal ID system will force small family farmers and ranchers to spend thousands of dollars
HOSTETTLER, JOHN: as well as comply with new paperwork and monitoring regulations to implement and operate the national ID system. This unnecessary financial burden could ruin small farms.
HOSTETTLER, JOHN: As we all know, many of America's small farms are struggling to survive in today's environment. They are teetering on a line that fluctuates with the seasons, with disease and with ever-changing
HOSTETTLER, JOHN: markets. The national animal ID system will only push these farmers further into financial troubles. By forcing small farms to adhere to unfair bureaucratic regulations, you will be driving third and
HOSTETTLER, JOHN: fourth generation farmers out of the only livelihood they have ever known.
HOSTETTLER, JOHN: In town hall meetings across my district, constituents have expressed to me their concerns with the proposed program. They are afraid of losing their farms because of big brother looking over their
HOSTETTLER, JOHN: shoulder and forcing them to adhere to unrealistic and intrusive regulations.
HOSTETTLER, JOHN: I urge my colleagues to support the Paul amendment and stand up for the thousands of hardworking small farmers in our country. Yield back the balance of my time.
THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman yields back the balance of his time. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized.
KINGSTON, JACK: Mr. chairman, I yield one minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Obey.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman yield one minute to the gentleman from Minnesota?
KINGSTON, JACK: I do.
THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman is recognized for one minute.
KINGSTON, JACK: You know, Minnesota, Wisconsin. they're all the same.
THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman is recognized.
PETERSON, COLLIN: Thank you very much. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in opposition. Although I have to say that the way the Department so far has administered this thing, I have
PETERSON, COLLIN: some sympathy for what you are saying, but not for the same reasons.
PETERSON, COLLIN: We have spent $84 million so far. We haven't accomplished a whole lot. In Canada, they put this up for $6 million. In Australia, they set their system up for $10 million. We could have done this for
PETERSON, COLLIN: a lot less money if we had gone about it in the right way.
PETERSON, COLLIN: I introduced a bill some time ago to make a mandatory system. But the fact of the matter is, if you don't think we need a national ID system in this country, you've got your head in the sand, because
PETERSON, COLLIN: we are going to have a problem. It is going to be foot and mouth, or it will be something else.
PETERSON, COLLIN: If we don't have a system, we are in big trouble and we are never going to get back in the Japanese market, some of these other markets, if we don't have an ID system in this country that works. So
PETERSON, COLLIN: this is not the right way to go, and I urge rejection of this amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from Texas, his time has expired. Does the gentleman from Georgia seek time?
KINGSTON, JACK: How much time is remaining, Mr. Chairman?
THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman has 30 seconds left.
KINGSTON, JACK: I will yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from Texas if 10 seconds will help him.
PAUL, RON: I thank the gentleman for yielding. I just want to urge an ``aye'' vote to try to slow up at least a brand new bureaucracy that is going to play havoc with our small farmers.
KINGSTON, JACK: And Mr. Chairman, I want to urge a ``no'' vote and say that we are going to join Mr. Paul in fighting a new bureaucracy and also to weed out an excessive burden on small farmers
KINGSTON, JACK: and too much information to the Federal Government. That is why we have delayed the funding of this until the advanced notice for proposed rulemaking has been filed, and we are going to work on a
KINGSTON, JACK: bipartisan basis to get that right. So please vote ``no.''
THE CHAIRMAN: Gentleman's time is expired. All time is expired.
OBEY, DAVID: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
THE CHAIRMAN: Gentleman is recognized for five minutes.
OBEY, DAVID: Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from Texas knows, I have a great deal of respect for him. He and I do not agree very often, but I think that he is a very thoughtful watchdog in this
OBEY, DAVID: House, and I appreciate the fact that he is suspicious of government overreach wherever it comes from.
OBEY, DAVID: Having said that, I want to echo the words of the gentleman from Minnesota. If you think that we are going to be able to sell our meat products on international markets without eventually having a
OBEY, DAVID: system like this, you are smoking something that ain't legal. It simply isn't going to happen. To defend the ability of our producers to export, we are going to have to have a decent animal ID
OBEY, DAVID: system. We are also going to have to have a decent animal ID system in order to protect the public health of our own citizens. So we need to have this go forward.
OBEY, DAVID: What the committee is doing is recognizing that the Agriculture Department has handled this issue so badly that they have given incompetence a bad name. And what the committee has therefore done is
OBEY, DAVID: to say that until the department gets its act in order, there will be no funds provided, but we leave the possibility open for funding once they get their act together. That's the responsible way to
OBEY, DAVID: force the agency to quit jerking farmers around. I mean, it is like watching a tennis game; bump, bump, bump. They change their mind every 5 minutes. You can't keep your eye on the ball. One day they
OBEY, DAVID: have one approach; one day they have another. And as a result, farmers are frustrated, consumers are confused, and taxpayers are bilked for a heck of a lot more money than this system ought to cost.
OBEY, DAVID: So I think we would not even be having this debate today if USDA had handled this in a fashion which was in any way competent, but they didn't and so now we pay the price with debates such as this.
OBEY, DAVID: I would urge that the House support the committee in this position. It is taking the responsible path on this issue. And I would urge that we turn down the amendment even though I fully appreciate
OBEY, DAVID: the frustration that lies underneath the actions of the people who have offered the amendment today.
THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman yields back the balance of his time.
THE CHAIRMAN: The gentle lady from Connecticut.
DeLAURO, ROSA: Move to strike the last word.
THE CHAIRMAN: The gentle lady is recognized for five minutes.
DeLAURO, ROSA: I want to associate myself with the comments of Mr. Obey and Mr. Peterson. I think that there is not any question that on all sides of this issue there has been great frustration
DeLAURO, ROSA: with the way in which the USDA has handled this issue.
DeLAURO, ROSA: In exchange, in the budget hearing this year, we find on one day it's a mandatory program, the next day it is a voluntary program. What we are doing is, we continue to put at risk the industry and
DeLAURO, ROSA: its ability to be able to protect the ranchers, and on the other hand, it doesn't deal with looking at, how do we protect the public health?
DeLAURO, ROSA: The bill does address this issue, and it acknowledges what the problems are. And I think that we said very clearly that until there is a complete and a detailed plan for the program included, not
DeLAURO, ROSA: limited to, pro-legislative changes, cost estimates, means of program evaluation, and that such a plan is published as an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking that these are the kinds of
DeLAURO, ROSA: requirements that have been put in by the committee.
DeLAURO, ROSA: And I think I want to urge my colleagues, though I understand, again, what the frustration is about this issue, to oppose the amendment and move with what the committee has put forward. I thank you.