***[Below is the final published wording of Senator Jim Talent’s Senate Bill 3862 with my comments bracketed in italics. This is a followup to the article of yesterday. In summary, the bill could be a lot stronger to protect our traditional rights to farm without government interference. I do not have the House of Representatives version (HR6042) yet but assume it is similar for now. -WJ]
To amend the Animal Health Protection Act to prohibit the Secretary of Agriculture from implementing or carrying out a National Animal Identification System or similar requirement,… (Introduced in Senate)
S 3862 IS
109th CONGRESS
2d Session
S. 3862
To amend the Animal Health Protection Act to prohibit the Secretary of Agriculture from implementing or carrying out a National Animal Identification System or similar requirement, to prohibit the use of Federal funds to carry out such a requirement,
***[Good. We don’t need to be wasting tax payer money on creating a system that is simply for the benefit of big business. If their customers (e.g., McDonald’s and foreign exporters) are going to demand trace-back then let them create a system for trace-back and pay a premium to farmers who provide that service. A mandatory system hurts farmers because it destroys the premium for the value added service of providing trace-back. The USDA’s National Animal Identification System (NAIS) is bad for farmers even if they want to do trace-back. -WJ]
and to require the Secretary to protect information obtained as part of any voluntary animal identification system.
***[This makes me leery because I do not want to see secrecy in government. On the one hand we want our information protected from competitors, governmental agencies and terrorists who might misuse the information to harm us. On the other hand if we make information secret, violating the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), then we set up our government to be non-transparent and able to hurt us by storing information about us which might be wrong and used to abuse our rights. Secrecy in government is a very dangerous thing. I am very uneasy with giving the government the power to be secretive. Lastly, there is the whole issue of Data Insecurity - the government and business have demonstrated repeatedly that they are not capable of actually protecting our information from hackers and theft. The solution is simply not to compile large mandatory databases on the citizenry. There is no need for a mandatory program that compiles large databases that will become targets for data theft. The goals of food safety can be achieved in other ways that do not violate our rights to privacy. -WJ]
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
September 7 (legislative day, September 6), 2006
Mr. TALENT introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry
A BILL
To amend the Animal Health Protection Act to prohibit the Secretary of Agriculture from implementing or carrying out a National Animal Identification System or similar requirement, to prohibit the use of Federal funds to carry out such a requirement, and to require the Secretary to protect information obtained as part of any voluntary animal identification system.
***[Ibid. -WJ]
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON MANDATORY ANIMAL IDENTIFICATION PROGRAM.
Section 10409 of the Animal Health Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 8308) is amended by adding at the end the following:
`(c) Prohibition on Mandatory Animal Identification Program- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary shall not implement or carry out, and no Federal funds shall be used to implement or carry out, a National Animal Identification System, or similar requirement, that mandates the participation of livestock owners.’.
***[This is good but does not go far enough. I worry about the government playing with the meaning of voluntary by not making it mandatory to be in NAIS, just impossible not to be in NAIS. We need protection from this sort of playing with words. We must be able to purchase, sell, breed, replace, trade, buy feed and supplies for, get veterinarian care for, display, transport, slaughter, butcher, process, store, get insurance, get permits and do other traditional farming and homesteading activities without being forced into the system. I would like to see language to this effect specifically added to the above paragraph to protect our traditional rights to farm. With out this protection the USDA can covertly force us into NAIS by simply making it impossible to do normal farming activities if you do not participate. As worded the USDA can claim the system is voluntary when in reality is is mandatory by simply making it impossible to farm without joining up. Beware. -WJ]
SEC. 2. PROTECTION OF INFORMATION IN A VOLUNTARY ANIMAL IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM.
Section 10409 of the Animal Health Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 8308) (as amended by section 1) is amended by adding at the end the following:
`(d) Protection of Information in a Voluntary Animal Identification System-
`(1) DEFINITION OF ANIMAL IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM- In this subsection, the term `animal identification system’ means a voluntary system for identifying or tracing animals that is established by the Secretary.
`(2) PROTECTION FROM DISCLOSURE-
`(A) IN GENERAL- Information obtained through the animal identification system shall not be disclosed except as provided in this subsection.
`(B) WAIVER OF PRIVILEGE OR PROTECTION- The provision of information to the animal identification system and the disclosure of information in accordance with this subsection shall not constitute a waiver of any applicable privilege or protection under Federal law, including trade secret protection.
***[Looks good on the face of it. -WJ]
`(3) LIMITED RELEASE OF INFORMATION- The Secretary may disclose information obtained through the animal identification system if–
`(A) the Secretary determines that livestock may be threatened by a disease or pest;
***[So we’ll be dependent on the judgement of the Secretary of Agriculture. That is too much power in such an itty-bitty space to miss-quote the genie. Given the USDA’s track record I don’t like the secretary having this power of decision. -WJ]
`(B) the release of the information is related to actions the Secretary is authorized to take under this subtitle; and
`(C) the Secretary determines that the disclosure of the information to a government entity or person is necessary to assist the Secretary in carrying out the purposes of–
`(i) this subtitle; and
`(ii) the animal identification system.
`(4) MANDATORY DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION- The Secretary shall disclose information obtained through the animal identification system regarding particular animals to–
`(A) the person who owns or controls the animals, if the person requests the information in writing;
***[Good. So we would be able to check the USDA records under the FOIA to make sure the government does not have errors. One problem with secrecy is the government having errors in their records that they then use to persecute people incorrectly and unjustly. This can be used by unscrupulous and evil bureaucrats to take down dissenters and ‘trouble-makers’. Don’t let government have that sort of power. Everything must be honest and above board. One of the most powerful goods in our society is an open exchange of information that keeps the government’s activities in the public eye. -WJ]
`(B) the Attorney General for the purpose of law enforcement;
***[This one is slippery - remember the whole issue of depopulation and 10-kilometer kill zones. -WJ]
`(C) the Secretary of Homeland Security for the purpose of homeland security;
***[Ick! I don’t trust the Department of Homeland Security. They should rename it the Department of Constitutional Violations and Abusers of Civilians. -WJ]
`(D) the Secretary of Health and Human Services for the purpose of protecting the public health;
***[Ibid. Better not to be collecting this information in the first place. -WJ]
`(E) an entity pursuant to an order of a court of competent jurisdiction; and
***[Ibid. -WJ]
`(F) the government of a foreign country if disclosure of the information is necessary to trace animals that pose a disease or pest threat to livestock or a danger to human health, as determined by the Secretary.
***[Whoa there, Nellie! I don’t want my information ever being revealed to the government of a foreign nation without my express permission. Our government’s job is to defend our citizens against foreign governments, not hand over our information to them. This is globalism gone mad. This is way overboard. At the very least all the foreign government should get is statistical compilations stripped of all personal and identifying information. That should be explicitly stated here. -WJ]
`(5) PROHIBITION ON DISCLOSURE UNDER STATE OR LOCAL LAW- Any information relating to animal identification that a State or local government obtains from the Secretary shall not be made available by the State or local government pursuant to State or local law requiring disclosure of information or records to the public.’.
***[Duh. This is tautological, of course they are restricted by their local laws. That right there is a reason not to be passing this information around - they may have weak local laws and will have weak security that is going to release our confidential information into the wild. Once it is out there will be no way of recapturing it. Bad, bad, bad. -WJ]
***[All of this gets back to some of my big points:
The Talent-Emerson bills may be a step in the right direction but it does not go nearly far enough. Contact your federal representatives, Senator Jim Talent and Representative Jo Ann Emerson. See the Contacts section of the right sidebar for addresses and phone numbers. -WJ]
WOW Walter!!!!!!!! You no how to pik apart things! Thank you Thank you Thank You THANK YOU for analising this billl. I woudnt have though of these problms. It looked good to me. I wish I had half your brains!!!!
Comment PV — September 13, 2006 @ 1:38 pm
I’m beginning to think that every government agency, every official, from the top brass down to the people in their mail rooms should be in a head gate and have their yearly shots, wormed, tattooed, inspected, ID’ed, deloused and to make sure they are healthy on the inside, palpated, men and women. Just a little thought.
Comment Suzy Minck — September 13, 2006 @ 2:36 pm
Please, Please someone remind me which country we live in? Because from where I’m looking it’s looking more and more like 1960’s USSR.
This sort of thing means those of us posting on this blog are going to be watched, and any one else who openly and directly opposes the Government. We’ll all fall under the umbrella of the dreaded “T” word. . . .
When is this nightmare gonna end?
[It is good to remember that the internet is an open protocol, email is like a postcard and the government likes carnivore like creatures. Remember the old phrase, “The King is dead, long live the King.” Do not say anything online or over a phoneline that you would not say face-to-face with the government. -WJ]
Comment Podchef — September 13, 2006 @ 6:53 pm
Great points!!!
If anyone has any doubts about what the USDA is capable of doing, take a look at a book called “Mad Sheep“. It is about what actually ocurred in VT a few years ago and may have some bearing on why VT passed the recent laws.
I concur with the comment that it’s beginning to look a lot like Russia in the 60’s and I think that may be what they are after. More power! More power!! More power!!!!
Government owned everything. Land, animals and, soon, our children will belong to the national herd.
Lee
Just say NONAzIS!!!!!!
Comment Lee Schuler — September 13, 2006 @ 7:22 pm
walter, you hit the nail right on the head.i commented on the lack of thought these people put into bills that they present to the house or senate,but after reading your comments i think they might have put a lot of thought into wording. all which can be construed in many ways, not good for us. i still say we (all of us)must join a large cattle group such as r-calf . one that is against mandatory id,and is for country of origin labeling (cool} if we are to win this battle. if the swell of the grass root movement and cattle groups such as r-calf come together as one force this battle can and will be won.
Comment NICK LeCOMPTE — September 13, 2006 @ 10:05 pm
Here is my biggest concerrn. Since this has been introduced and is so beneficial to the pro-nais folks, this MIGHT get pushed through instead of languishing in committee forever. If it stays in committee it would be better for us. We have to watch the ag committee schedules both house and senate like hawks. Continue our monitoring and surveillance of the USDA.
Comment Doreen — September 14, 2006 @ 6:06 am
Here is another point on interpretation of the Talent bill –
Sec. 1 of the bill states that “no Federal funds shall be used to implement or carry out, a National Animal Identification System, or similar requirement, that mandates the participation of livestock owners.”
There is no definition in the bill of “National Animal Identification System” and it is uncertain (at least to my mind) exactly what definition would be intended for this phrase in the context of the bill.
Assuming that a “National” system would be one that is uniform on a nationwide basis, then a “National” system would NOT include any State system implemented only on a statewide basis, even if such a State system is a mandatory program. The bill prohibits the use of Federal funds only for a “National” system that “mandates” participation. Therefore, the USDA would still be allowed to award grants in support of a State mandatory program; or in support of a Federal or State “voluntary” program. In other words, the USDA could keep using Federal funding for exactly all the initiatives related to NAIS that it is pursuing at present, including the Wisconsin and Indiana mandatory programs.
Comment Mary Zanoni — September 14, 2006 @ 7:43 am
This bill is better than nothing right now. There are many flaws in it and things we don’t agree with, however; the bill would essentially cut off funding for a mandatory NAIS. When the bill reaches the ag committee then we can get some things changed. The points regarding the FOIA aren’t that important in that your personal information will remain private unless you volunteer it.
It’s easier to make changes once a bill has been introduced and since it’s an election year this is our chance. Evidently they are hearing us. Let’s don’t blow this one. Time is of the essence and even though this bill might just sit in committee and never be heard there are already 3 bills sitting in committee auhtorizing a mandatory NAIS. This is a start in our favor. Not perfect, but at least it’s something we can build on.
Comment Pam Cantwell — September 14, 2006 @ 10:00 am
Thank you Walter for posting this excellent information, I will be posting your info. to IOWANS AGAINST NAIS after this comment. I am winterizing my home while it is still hot out without rain, so I have been burning the candle alot lately. Your time invested to bring out these issues is very much appreciated, by all.
Just doing a cursory review leads me to one conclusion.
If a Legislative, or Congressional Rep. or Senator is submitting any legislation to “amend” the NAIS system, to keep it operational, especially by the USDA, then that Congressional Member is “IN FAVOR OF” NAIS, no matter what the bill says or does.
My educated opinion, is We the People, begin writing all Congressional members stating, NO to ANY AMENDED LEGISLATION. NO TO NAIS…PERIOD. It is important We ALL voice our opinions and reasons to Congress, NOW!
Thank you all, for your support!
Dean A. Ayers
Glenwood, Iowa 51534
DeanOSI @netscape.com
IOWANS AGAINST NAIS
NAIS is Exactly the “WRONG” Answer! In ANY FORM!
Just VOTE, “NO” to Deadwood Politicians, who won’t say “NO” to NAIS; In ANY FORM of LEGISLATION AMENDMENT!
Comment DeanAFOSI (IOWA) — September 14, 2006 @ 4:36 pm
WOW, Noah, I am so in sync with your comments on the IOWANS AGAINST NAIS…
I also agree and
say: We the People, must not accept a “legislation compromise” as ANY legislation to keep NAIS is a “failure” on our part,
and still will be a violation of Premises Property Rights, and potential for U.S.
Constitutional violations of Search and Seizure without a due warrant or cause to search and seize unregistered or non-compliance
animals…
WE FIGHT ALL THE WAY TO “NO NAIS” PERIOD!!
I say:
Stick together or Die together, as FREE PERSONS!!!!
Dean A. Ayers
Glenwood, Iowa
IOWANS AGAINST NAIS
PS Everyone, you all really are “cooking” now! BRAVO!
Comment DeanAFOSI (IOWA) — September 14, 2006 @ 5:27 pm
getting suckered in is the biggest danger..we were right
back in January..NO NAIS or
anything remotely resembling it.
Stick to your guns….
NO NAIS IS GOOD RIDDANCE
It can’t be fixed (with a bill).
It can only be trashed and we will.
’tis an ill wind that blows no good.
To trash this NAIS is what we should.
It stinks to high heaven the more it’s exposed.
And recalls to mind the emperor’s clothes.
Except that just being naked can’t compare
with the smell of corruption that is fowling our air.
When the National Animal ID scheme raised it’s head
The guillible people believed what the government said
About keeping them safe from those mad cow diseases
And those avian flue germs that arrive on the breezes.
And men became babies and blubbered with fear.
“We’ll do what you tell us;Just don’t let those germs near”
And they bent themselves over in degrading positions
and wiped their bare asses with old constitutions.
But instead of our God-given rights,we should shred
That insidious NAIS scam until it is DEAD.
LONG LIVE THE CONSTITUTION
Comment sid sargent — September 14, 2006 @ 7:21 pm
I have 4 inputs to why Say “NO- Period, ” “No Compromise” to the Legislation Amendment proposal as follows:
1. The truth of the matter is, in fact, that NAIS is being implemented to make it extremely quick for the USDA and it’s “death Squads” to respond and immediately “Stamp out” also called “MURDER” any and all animals within the specified zone, beginning with a 10 km (12 mile) radius around the initial infectious suspect zone. Additionally the zone, can and will be expanded until such time that all animals whether healthy, infected or not, will be “Stamped out, ” culled, killed, or “Murdered.” Pick your own word, it all means the same.. I can substantiate this information, should you choose to “challenge” me.
THE NAIS IS A “DEATH SENTENCE” to be USED at WILL by the USDA! Why make it easier for them to “kill” your healthy animals without any sue process, nor justification, or explanation. Additionally, the USDA will sent you their “BILL” for all costs of the “Death Squad” activities, after they have eradicated your “herd,” animals, and all. This has already been done with an Elk herd, I can substantiate that also.
2. The Amendment bill for the NAIS, emphasizes that no Federal Funds can be used….Well it does NOT prevent the USDA from making the Premise ID people from flipping 100% of the bill, as a fee, to either the State, or local government. A fee is NOT, Federal Funds if it is not yet put into the Federal Kitty (cash box).
You think I am playing with words,well what do you think the Legislation is doing? It’s pulling the wool over your eyes. They are attempting to bend you over, and make yo say thank you for it.
3. This bill is a “disguise” to quell the People into “slow” submission, thinking the Legilator’s are on our
side. Once they are all elected or re-elected, laws can be changed folks with the Powers of the PATRIOT ACT, without due process, as well as Presidential EXECUTIVE ORDERS, to mandate changes necessary to the good of the Nation in times of a declared EMERGENCY. Well diseases can pop up, change, or be added to the environment, by deliberate terroristic means, accidents, or negligence, and President’s love to invoke orders to Control the People.. No safety in Legislation folks………..Especially “VAGUE” Legislation…
4. The Bill or Legislations will do nothing to Stop the implementation of the NAIS System as follows: I am already keenly aware of SALE BARNS in Northern IOWA areas that ALREADY MANDATE the requirement of RFID “CHIPS” in animals, or they CANNOT be BOUGHT, SOLD
Comment DeanAFOSI (IOWA) — September 14, 2006 @ 7:42 pm
My educated opinion, is We the People, begin writing all Congressional members stating, NO to ANY AMENDED LEGISLATION. NO TO NAIS…PERIOD. It is important We ALL voice our opinions and reasons to Congress, NOW!
THANK YOU, DEAN!!!
I agree. The government - state, federal, & I guess I must say ‘global’ since they seem to be at the bottom of this - have absolutely no authority from me to impose their goal to quantify and control every resource on the planet for whatever purpose they have in mind.
I was taught at my grandfather’s knee that the only true wealth in life is land capable of sustaining one’s needs and the needs of extended family.
Don’t these legislators take an oath to uphold the United States Constitution? Maybe they haven’t read it.
God Help America.
In the meantime, we need to restate our position to all those reps who still don’t get it. And then, vote them out - if the voting machines work - when they send back another of those cut & paste responses using all the very same phrases each of us receives no matter what state we live in.
No one wants to believe that we could be lambs led to slaughter. However, it is prudent to look outside the loading chute we are being driven down.
Dean is right.
We must exercise our responsibility as United States Citizens. The Constitution has proven itself over and over again. It is being tested like never before, but it is still in force.
The rest of the world would like to have the same inherent rights we have been blessed with by that ‘piece of paper’. I know they watch to see if we are up to the challenge. We are being asked to believe in it enough to make it work for us. By doing so, all people may have a better hope.
Comment donna — September 14, 2006 @ 8:20 pm
I will support to keep our freedoms and support bill 53862.
Comment Douglas Hoyle — September 15, 2006 @ 2:14 am
I e-mailed Senator Talent two days ago, and I think we should each send Talent and Emerson an e-mail every week, without fail. We can choose whatever day of the week is best for us, and follow-up on that day every week. I can think of lots of comments to pass on to them, so we could only e-mail a portion of our comments each time, or send the same e-mail every time. Anyone else game?
Comment Texas Goat Gal — September 15, 2006 @ 6:53 am
Hi Liberty Lovers:
Thank you for your efforts, one and all!
Well Said:
NO NAIS is not achieved with this legislation.
Compromise favors mandatory outcomes.
Doesn’t it strike anyone suspicious that Rep Talent’s office only allowed 24 hours of inclusion?
While in rural NY this past week, I was shocked how few farmers/husbandmen had heard of NAIS(at all, let alone in any detail). Even the Mennonites seemed largely unaware. Back to postering …
respects, Wm
Comment Mr Dirty Nails — September 15, 2006 @ 8:42 am
OK, our animals and our way of life as we want it, as this is a free country, is at risk. I for one don’t know what my real reaction will be if any NAIS person comes on my property. On the other hand, I had an e-mail from the Texans-Against-NAIS site this morning and it was a release about TX’s govenor Perry. It seems he has made a deal with some company from another country to buy TX land and the deal will be putting $ in these peoples pockets from overseas for 50 years or more. The kicker is that the land will be taken by eminant domain. So now the people of this country will be on their front porches with their 16 gage, double barrel, shotguns to protect the property that they bought with their very hard earned $ to protect because someone in another country wants to buy it without you offering it for sale. Perry is what I scrape off my boots after cleaning the dogs kennel.
Comment Suzy Minck — September 15, 2006 @ 12:52 pm
Here is the latest notice from libertyark.net re: Talent-Emerson.
As you know, Senator James Talent (S3862) and Congresswoman Jo Ann Emerson (HR6042) have introduced legislation that prohibits any federal animal identification program that mandates participation by livestock owners and prohibits federal funding for any such program.
You can view the full text of S3862 on our website at link.
This is a significant step forward in the battle to defeat the NAIS. The Senator requested a response from the Coalition the day before he filed the bill. We thanked the Senator for this effort, and added that certain specific items needed to be addressed – the definition of “voluntary,” the need to limit federal funding of state mandatory programs, and the need to stop involuntary registration of premises and allow the people already registered to withdraw. In addition, we provided a list of other issues that needed to be covered in the ultimate legislation. You can see a copy of our letter to the Senator here: link
Even with our concerns, the bills that have been introduced are a significant step forward. Without a clear statute, USDA would undoubtedly continue on the coercive, government-funded implementation of NAIS at the state level that we have seen happening. And until now, the only bills in Congress were based on the mandatory concept. The grassroots movement would have had a terrible time trying to amend any of these earlier bills to get rid of the mandatory provisions. Now, we have a bill that begins with the position that the program should be voluntary. And now we can work to improve this bill to add the provisions necessary to limit NAIS to a truly voluntary, market-driven program that does not penalize anyone in any way for not participating.
We were not asked to help draft this legislation, but now have access and participation. For this, we need to express appreciation to the Congressmen who took this step. If the proposed bills ultimately fail to address the critical issues about NAIS, then we can always oppose them then.
While we work with Congress, we encourage you to tell us what you want us to communicate. At this time, here’s what we recommend:
1. Contact your Representative and Senators and tell them these two bills have been introduced, and that you want them to consider co-sponsoring the bills. You can find contact information for your elected officials at link
2. You should list a few reasons why you are opposed to a mandatory government program: invasion of privacy, the burden on property rights, the cost, the lack of proven benefits or of scientific evidence to support the need for the program, the increase in the government bureaucracy, the consolidation of our food supply, and/or whatever reasons are important to you.
3. Add some or all of the recommendations listed above in the Liberty Ark letter, on how the bills should be improved.
4. Ask them to respond and tell you if they support this prohibition against a mandatory program and whether they are willing to support stronger provisions to protect livestock owners.
You can also help by continuing to educate your friends and neighbors by distributing brochures, asking people to sign up on the Liberty Ark Coalition website (http://libertyark.net), and asking your area radio stations to play the PSA (link).
This is a great opportunity to show that we are the mainstream opinion on NAIS and effect change in Congress. The bills that have been introduced are a work in progress. Help us work toward improving them and ensuring our position against NAIS wins.
[END]
[I would suggest writing to your represenatives and be sure to point out the problems with the Talent-Emerson bills as we do not want them passed as written. As they are they would hurt us. -WJ]
Comment Neil W. — September 15, 2006 @ 2:23 pm
Talent-Emerson Bill Betrays NAIS Opposition
Contact: Richard Bean 434.263.8704
Deborah Stockton 434.295.7176
The National Animal Identification System (NAIS) cannot be found in the U.S. Code. Should the Talent – Emerson bill become law, NAIS will be inserted into the U.S. Code for the first time, giving the USDA the authority to create and develop a national animal identification program without ever defining the most important word in its creation. “Voluntary” is at the crux of the matter, and small-scale producers, family farms, homesteaders, pet owners and the person who owns even one chicken for breakfast eggs have as much reason to fear a coercive “voluntary” system as a mandatory program.
The Talent – Emerson bill attempts to achieve two main political functions. First, it is designed to politically take the edge off this contentious issue. Since first announcing its intention to create the NAIS, the USDA has heard from a very vocal and active grassroots movement that opposes this government identification and tracking program. After over a year of opposition and ridicule, the USDA announced that the program would remain “voluntary.” But their words and their actions do not match. Indiana and Wisconsin have both implemented mandatory premises identification — with USDA funding — and many other states are considering mandatory premises identification, which is the first step in the USDA’s three step implementation plan of premises registration, followed by tagging every animal, then tracking every animal. Still the USDA insists the program is “voluntary” and now there is a bill introduced in Congress that attempts to splinter the grassroots opposition by offering a compromise to one small portion of the coalition who never really understood the danger of or opposed the creation of a coercive “voluntary” NAIS.
Second, one should never underestimate the politics behind the introduction of this bill. While the Virginia Independent Consumers and Farmers Association (VICFA) has not taken a position on the coming election we do understand that politicians face an increasingly angry electorate over NAIS and that they are looking for ways to take the emotion out of this issue before November. We won’t make a determination about the motives behind the introduction of this bill, but we need to ask what do we have to gain by a supporting a bill that creates a new government program that currently does not exist in law, and that will negatively affect the livelihood of thousands of family farmers? The introduction of this new piece of legislation is a prime example of how government continues to grow while the politicians take credit for limiting the growth of government programs. Several years ago, a national animal identification plan was just the dream of a few industry folks who saw dwindling breed registries and an opportunity to make a buck using the power of the U.S. government. Now, instead of just saying no to this new expensive and unnecessary government program, the Talent–Emerson bill actually would create a new government boondoggle in federal law. Only in Washington, DC would the creation of a new government program be considered limiting government growth. Sure, it might be a little less than the USDA and their partners in industry want, but they will get ninety percent of what they want, and under a coercive “voluntary” program farmers will be left holding the bill.
The Talent –Emerson bill is flawed in other respects. Section 2 of the bill grants the USDA a blanket exception from public disclosure laws that would allow the USDA to run this program under a cloak of secrecy while at the same time allowing producer information to be widely disseminated. It appears that this poorly worded bill was a feeble attempt to protect participant animal owners from having their personal information released. However, the bill grants the USDA the right to disclose livestock owners’ information to law enforcement, Homeland Security, Health and Human Services, by court order, and even to a foreign government if the USDA determines an animal poses a “disease or pest threat” or a “danger to human health.” The exceptions swallow the rule. One can hardly think of a reason why the USDA would not routinely hand out your information to untold numbers of administrative agency bureaucrats and individuals. This is not the protection of personal information that livestock owners are demanding under a “voluntary” program.
Finally, VICFA cannot support this bill because of its conspicuous silence on the definition of “voluntary.” As we have mentioned, the USDA has made no secret of its desire to have full participation in the NAIS. The Talent — Emerson bill creates NAIS, and then says “livestock owners” cannot be mandated to participate. However, this leaves a universe of market entry points that can and will be regulated under a new congressionally created program. Imagine the difficulty of a producer who chooses not to participate when his children are excluded from 4-H competitions, processors refuse to accept his animals, and he cannot transport animals to buy and sell because a veterinarian cannot issue a health certificate without a premises registration or animal identification.
Call your Representatives and Senators today and tell them that the Talent – Emerson bill does not pass muster.
Comment Andy Anony Moooose — September 15, 2006 @ 3:08 pm
God Bless You ANDY ANONY MOOOOSE, No. 19; Boy, where have you been all my NoNAIS life..
You come back now…HERE!
I AM NOT JOKING!
This guy’s good! Crosspost this infor, everyone, to all Reps. and Senator’s Please!
Dean A. Ayers
Glenwood, IOWA
IOWANS AGAINST NAIS
Comment DeanAFOSI (IOWA) — September 15, 2006 @ 4:44 pm
Andy Anony, I concur with Dean. I am elated to see some tough, no-compromise talk. These traitors in congress are not “honorable” as long as they are willing to sell us out.
Comment Texas Goat Gal — September 15, 2006 @ 6:32 pm
PLEASE READ #19, and pass it on!
ps Mary Z, what say ye?
I echo Dean and the Goat Gal.
Btw, Goat Gal, Hank Gilbert was interviewed on the 11 Sept Common Sense Coalition(scroll down).
http://studio-c.blogspot.com/
He sure sounds like our kinda people folks. Texas feedback would be appreciated.
respects, and thank ya Moooose
Comment Mr Dirty Nails — September 15, 2006 @ 10:14 pm
Walter,
Still not recieving any of your alerts via email.
Thanks
Stewart
[That is because your old email address was still on the list rather than your new one. To change it you merely need to enter your new email address, select subscribe and press Send. Then clear out your old email address by entering it, selecting remove and pressing Send. I have done it for you. If you need to do it in the future you can easily do it your self following those directions. -WJ]
Comment Stewart Skrill — September 16, 2006 @ 7:24 am
I am in 100% agreement with the view that the Talent/Emerson bills are a complete betrayal of the NAIS opposition and are a total sell-out. This bill is nothing but the cesspool of Big Ag dressed up like a fancy whore to mislead small farmers into supporting it. Our best approach is to hope it just lies around motionless in committee, like the dead smelly fish that it is.
Comment Mary Zanoni — September 16, 2006 @ 11:52 am
Mary, can I quote you??? From your statement you can see how bad it smells. :)
Comment Doreen — September 16, 2006 @ 4:57 pm
This past weekend, I didn’t accomplish anything around here other than feed animals and sit at the computer looking for updates on the Talent-Emerson controversy. I have to say I like Mary’s and VICFA’s positions that this is BAD. This is the way congress does business all the time - amending and reamending, attaching to bills, etc. I believe we have had some measure of control, and now it can rapidly be snatched away by conniving politicians. Is anything being done behind the scenes to bring the previous views, and other organizations to a united conclusion?
Another problem is that other websites are picking up on the initial “good” news about the Talent-Emerson bill, but no follow-ups on potential problems. This is the only website where I post comments, so I will have to find other sites that I can direct to nonais.org for updates. We need to find any website that is fighting NAIS and keep them posted. Ag Weekly has an article today “Legislation Would Prohibit Mandatory Animal ID”. I just e-mailed them to nicely suggest they check out the two posts and follow-ups on the Talent-Emerson bill on this website.
Comment Texas Goat Gal — September 19, 2006 @ 8:36 am
I received this email today and I am posting it for all to see. I tend to agree with Mary Zanoni that Talent-Emerson is not the answer we have been looking for from the feds. But, read this email and see “another point of view”.
Last week, our fight to stop NAIS entered a new phase. Senator Talent
and Congresswoman Emerson introduced parallel bills in the U.S. Senate
and House that have the following provisions:
(1) a prohibition on a mandatory program,
(2) a prohibition on funding mandatory programs, and
(3) some protection from public disclosure of information gathered
through a voluntary program.
The bills do not affirmatively establish a NAIS program. They only
prohibit a mandatory one. Some people have criticized the bills for
proposing an exemption if an animal never leaves the farm - but the
bills contain no such provision. These critics are confusing these new
bills with what the USDA proposed several months ago. Again, these bills
do not contain that exemption, so it’s irrelevant.
The bills bar a mandatory program, which is the first step. We will need
amendments or a second bill to address the other issues, such as
premises registration and preventing a voluntary program from being
coercive. Together with others in the grassroots movement, we have
drafted a model state statute to cover these issues, which you can find
at http://www.libertyark.net/draft-state917.htm
We cannot afford to just wait until the Farm Bill is considered by
Congress. Neither the USDA nor the states care that we think they don’t
have authority to fund or implement NAIS-they’re doing it anyway. This
is an immediate problem that needs to be addressed as soon as possible.
The more money spent to enact this non-program, the more entrenched it
becomes. Also, the Farm Bill will be a complex statute with a lot of
“pork provisions,” so the NAIS issue could get lost in the negotiations.
In contrast, stand-alone bills, like the Talent/Emerson bills, give us
an opportunity to ask Congress to focus just on NAIS.
Where are we without the Talent/Emerson bills?
* USDA is moving full steam ahead with developing the NAIS plan and
funding states to implement it
* States are implementing the program while avoiding responsibility by
claiming that the “feds are making us do it”
* There are three bills already in front of the Agriculture Committee
that would specifically authorize USDA to implement a federal,
mandatory, electronic NAIS.
* Industry officials have spent 20 years developing their plans
* USDA has spent $184 million and effectively kept the public out of the
process
The Talent/Emerson bills give us more ability to fight at both the state
and federal level:
* The states’ excuses are weakened, giving us more power to stop this
program in each state
* In the federal legislative process, when multiple bills are meshed,
there are now anti-NAIS bills to counterbalance the pro-NAIS bills that
are already in Committee.
* We can still ask other Congressmen and Senators to introduce more
detailed bills or amendments that address all of the problems with NAIS.
We can both support the Talent/Emerson bill and support amendments or
other bills, especially ones that would stop the government from
penalizing people who do not “volunteer.”
* We can always oppose or seek to amend whatever comes out of the
Committee as a result of the meshing process.
* We have an opportunity to be involved in the process for the first time
Some have suggested that we should not support a bill amending the
Animal Health Protection Act because it implies approval of USDA’s
unauthorized actions to date. Although USDA has acted terribly in
implementing NAIS, Congress is highly unlikely to ever, in any statute,
retroactively condemn what the agency has already done. So the important
issue is what will provide the most protection against government abuse
as we move forward. If the USDA believes that it has authority under the
Animal Health Protection Act for NAIS, then the best way to shut that
door permanently is to amend that very statute to say “No, you do not
have authority.” The Talent/Emerson bills do that.
[END]
Is there any merit to what the writer of the above email says?
Comment Neil W. — September 20, 2006 @ 11:22 am
Neil, I believe there is merit in what the writer says. The Talent/Emerson bills do give us an opportunity that we should take advantage of. We have an opporunity to help make them better. I wouldn’t say that these bills are completely toothless, but they definitely could be stronger. Also, the bills will probably be watered down before being passed, if they are even passed at all.
Please don’t think I’m being pessimistic. I merely mean to point out that the Talent/Emerson bills are a starting point that we should build on. We must tell the legislators how they can change these bills to make them far more effective.
God Bless
Comment Goatman — September 20, 2006 @ 5:54 pm
Howdo:
Whether yall know it or not Texas is in several cross hairs.
Assuming no further catalysing events
(which sadly, I wouldn’t bank on),
Texas’ election results
and their voting machines
should be carefully watched:
I’m expecting unmistakeable fall-out.
Show us the way Texas.
Please, Wm
ps I know most yall cannot believe it but none of this legislation will matter a whit come 2010 if the North American Parliament begins doing business as scheduled.
NAIS is not mentioned but you’ll see how it fits into the big picture if you study this:
link
and this too, further shows the ‘intent’ we still do not know enough to fear:
link
Comment Mr Dirty Nails — September 22, 2006 @ 8:18 pm
Walter; I hope that you see this comment posted on 09/27/06…and consider making it a “lead article” so as to smooth some of the ruffled feathers that have resulted from the Talent-Emerson debate:
Follows:
“Despite all the fuss, the Talent/Emerson bills are actually not very important, because Congress goes into pre-election recess soon and there is no practical likelihood of either bill moving forward before then. They were introduced solely because Talent and Emerson thought they could get antiNAIS Missouri voters on their side — which appears to have backfired, with Doreen H and other MO NAIS opponents publicly denouncing the bills as trickery. Carl Little has explained that when the new Congress reconvenes in Jan, House bills from the prior session don’t survive. Without the election hanging over her head, Emerson, assuming she returns to the House, will probably not consider the reintroduction of this bill as a priority. In the Senate, apparently some bills can be taken over into the new session — I’m unsure whether this bill would be such or not — but since the Talent/McCaskill Senate race is a deadheat we don’t know if Talent will be around in Jan. So let’s just wait and enjoy the drama on election night”.
[END]
Comment Neil W. — September 27, 2006 @ 1:09 pm