Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agendcies Appropriations Act, 2007

AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENÐCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2007 -- (House of Representatives - May 23, 2006)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I offer today is an amendment that is made up of an original bill that I drafted as a stand-alone bill actually to establish a livestock identification plan. It is called the LIMO Act, the Livestock Identification and Market Opportunities Act.

We have heard debate here on the gentleman from Texas' amendment, and it is recognized I believe throughout the industry, certainly the industry in Iowa and the industry across the country that I have had the opportunity to interrelate with, that we must go to a livestock identification plan at some point.

If we are going to make a change, the quicker the better. We are losing market share in Asia right now because we are not able to identify our livestock. I took the initiative to travel to different locations on the globe to inspect their livestock identification systems, including some of the locations in Europe, including Canada and especially Australia, where I tracked their livestock from birth to slaughter and each one of those stops that they have there. They were very helpful and cooperative.

As I looked at all the models that were out there and worked with our major commodities groups that we have here in this country and sat down and sorted through the differences, we produced this bill that I think stands alone as the single most carefully thought-out crafted and customized piece of livestock identification that has been presented to this Congress.

It recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota's contribution for protection of the Freedom of Information Act and a number of other interests and points that needed to be incorporated into this legislation.

But what it does is it establishes a livestock identification board and keeps the control of the data within the hands of the producers. This is a quasi-private sector entity that will be established. It establishes a board that is made up of seven members, voting members. There is one each representing the beef industry, one for swine, one for poultry, which includes chicken and turkeys, one for sheep and goats together, and also a voting position that would be a member-at-large as well as a representative from the meat processors and another representative from the livestock auctioneers. Those would be the voting members of the board.

Also on the board would be two ex-officios that would be appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture, as would the entire board. Those ex-officios would be one from USDA, our Secretary of Agriculture's appointment, and one from the State veterinarians or Tribal veterinarians organizations. So we have a producer-driven consortium that runs this, and they will be the controllers of the data.

We set up the standards by which the data would be available to the Secretary of Agriculture in the event of the necessity to eradicate disease and give Freedom of Information Act protection.

So this process we have protects the producers from having their data within the control of the USDA; it makes it within the click of a mouse of the Secretary of Agriculture if there is a disease that needs to be eradicated. So we find the best of both worlds.

But the firewall is there. The Secretary can only access the data that is necessary for eradication, and the balance of the data that would be entered into this program would be data that would be voluntarily submitted then by the producers, and they could then use this data for market opportunity, for breeding purposes, for marketing purposes, and particularly our purebred breeders will be able to utilize it.

This is an idea whose time has come. It is carefully well thought out, and this is the opportunity presented to this Congress for evaluation by the Members.

I recognize that it is policy that would be amended on to an appropriations bill, and I recognize the gentleman's point of order; but I hope that this Congress recognizes the necessity to take a careful look at this well-thought-out livestock identification plan that gives Freedom of Information Act protection.

It is driven by the membership, by the producers. They will be able to control their own data, and they will also control then the input into that data. We will let them apply some fees, and the fees then can go to fund the operation of the management of the data, and I am convinced it will be far cheaper than what will be done by the agency.

But the important part is this: it respects the contributions made by the other entities out there. The cattle industry, for example, the swine industry, they have been out there doing their contributions from a volunteer perspective.

Envision, if you will, a house with many rooms and different electricians coming into each room, wiring the lights and hanging the lights, but not wiring every room and not hanging lights in every room, just some rooms, the room for beef, the room for pork; but we don't have a junction box, we don't have a way to bring the power in.

This bill is the junction box in that house. It brings the power in that lights up all the work that has been done by the other entities, including the USDA, and it wires the rooms that haven't been wired to this point, such as sheep and goats, and it allows for group identification.

That is pretty much the quick once-over of the livestock identification bill, the LIMO Act, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, recognizing the point of order that has been pointed out by the chairman, I would respectfully ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

BERAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov/