On February 13, 2007, Mrs. Emerson, with Mr. Boozman, Mr. Paul, and Mr. Duncan, introduced H.R. 1018:
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 and… (Introduced in House)
110th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 1018
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 and to require the Secretary to protect information obtained as part of any voluntary animal identification system.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
February 13, 2007
Mrs. EMERSON (for herself, Mr. BOOZMAN, Mr. PAUL, and Mr. DUNCAN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture
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 and to require the Secretary to protect information obtained as part of any voluntary animal identification system.
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.’.
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.
`(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;
`(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;
`(B) the Attorney General for the purpose of law enforcement;
`(C) the Secretary of Homeland Security for the purpose of homeland security;
`(D) the Secretary of Health and Human Services for the purpose of protecting the public health;
`(E) an entity pursuant to an order of a court of competent jurisdiction; and
`(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.
`(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.’.
Hat tip to WDMoore
We have to protect our animals, just as we would our children. They are totally defensive creatures.
Comment Suz Stapler — March 23, 2007 @ 7:39 pm
It appears to me we are making some unanticipated progress, thanks to these people who have a grip on reality: Emerson, Boozman, Paul and Ducan. If ever there was a disgrace to the USDA, it’s Michael Johann. It’s time someone (anyone) challenged his idiocy. Johann has the imbecilic idea to sanction NO TESTING of cattle for BSE, yet supports NAIS. In accordance to “political correct”, the man is mentally challenged.
Comment Mari in Wis. — March 23, 2007 @ 8:18 pm
So what exactly would be the legal ramifications for we the people if this law was passed? Just wanting a little clarification of the jargon… ;D
Comment Rachael — March 23, 2007 @ 9:01 pm
This is theexact, unchanged bill from last fall that Talent and Emerson introduced. This is NOT good. It ratifies the AHPA (Animal Health Protection Act which the USDA claims as their authorizing legislation complete with fines and penalties of $500-$500,000 or 10 years in prison) as authorizing NAIS, does not provide for lack of federal funding of state mandatory systems, does not curtail federal level funding of an increasing prominent and possibly commercially restraining ‘voluntary’ federal level program, does not provide for people to have their information expunged from the datbase, does not specifically preclude premises registration from ever being a requirement for services of any sort and knocks state inquiries regarding any info out. It is a BAD bill. It was bad last fall, and it is bad now.:)
On a federal level it would be good to defund the program in it’s entirety. It would also be good to prohibit the program in it’s entirety.
This is only the second time in 16 years I have found myself in complete disagreement with Mr. Paul. It’s probably the 40th time in 3 years I have found myself in complete disagreement with Ms. Emerson.
Comment Doreen — March 23, 2007 @ 9:19 pm
It is only saying it will make it ‘voluntary’ on the federal level.
That don’t mean that Idaho can’t still make it mandatory.
Here is what I fear happening, if we don’t kill NAIS altogether……
Even if it only becomes a ‘voluntary’ program, our insurers will use it against those of us who don’t wish to participate, by claiming us to be at a higher risk of incident.
Sale yards will become harder to deal with and will probably assess added fees to market your animals.
Any State or Federally funded or sponsored programs (4H, FFA, etc.) will make it difficult or impossible for you or your kids to participate.
Traveling with your animals onto public lands (hunting, trail rides, etc.) could be limited to only registered/ID’d animals.
Grazing rights on public lands could be limited to only registered/ID’d animals.
County and State Fairs and all city parades could perhaps only allow said animals.
And the list goes on, farther than I’m sure I’ve imagined.
I have a mile of river through my ranch. I shudder to think what they could try (if I don’t ‘volunteer’) to do to take away my innate rights to that river because my cattle are not registered/ID’d and pose a higher threat by contaminating the water when they drink!
We’ve got to see this thing killed completely or sooner or later ‘voluntary’ will be squeezing us all into the program through survival efforts! Or out of the animal business.
Not acceptable to me!
We don’t want NAIS! No way, no shape, no how!
Blaine
Comment Blaine Hubsmith — March 24, 2007 @ 12:50 am
You know what really is cranking my horn??? These dumb #%* are worried
about tagging everything here in the USA and yet they let dog food buyers
buy out of the country and next thing ya know is we have a bunch of dead
pets!!!!!
This really p*&%$&^ off…..its is said that the source is from
China…now for cryin’ out loud why is it they don’t give a hoot about
that…it could have been human deaths…what are they doing to protect us
from forgien products. WELL they are working on our own people and ignoring
the real source of what needs to be done….we know where our stuff comes from.
So far they are lucky I haven’t lost a pet….I am afraid to let my poor
cats have a treat as it might kill them….I am afraid to buy fruit and
veggies as who in the heck know where they are from….same with fish and
seafood period….it all comes from somewhere other than here. They should
put their efforts into making darn sure our food isn’t contaminated. I hope
like heck that these people sue the hell out of them (dog food people) and
let it be known that maybe they ought to buy from here….you know spend a few extra pennies to make we don’t all come down with a forgien disease. They shouldn’t be watching the cow next door what about the one that get slaughtered and drug thru the grime, washed up and sent here????? HELLLLOOOO
I am just frosted beyond mad…..how ignorant do our governing bodies have
to get before the masses say ENOUGH ALREADY!!!!!
HOLY COW!!!!!
Terry
Comment Terry Jensen — March 24, 2007 @ 5:34 am
Remember: As Doreen mentioned, all they are precluding is mandatory. This ratifies the AHPA and remember what voluntary means??? ‘Financial incentive’ and ‘to accept part of the package is to accept the whole package’. That means a whole lot more than just NAIS folks. Google: SF 424B. Every State/Tribe has signed this form to get federal dollars.
Comment Celeste — March 24, 2007 @ 6:41 am
Terry, you go to your local farmer and buy food. Easy as that and your helping a local person that way as well as yourself.
I’m thinking bringing back the old Victory gardens could be a good thing here.
Comment Sue F — March 24, 2007 @ 8:07 am
It is always ‘all about the money’. This post is not really in line with the others but I needed to vent. If the pet food plant for manufacturing Iams pet food is in KS why in the world would they import wheat from China? We the people have been sold down the river. How do we know that this contaminated wheat is not in the human foods? How clever of China, see the reaction and dying in pets, next in line, who might that be.
Comment arlene — March 24, 2007 @ 8:33 am
Agreed, this thing has to die, not be made “voluntary”. We know too well how the word “voluntary” has been re-defined and will be redefined further. The fact is, government is completely out of control at every level: city, county, state and federal.
We need to dump every seated politician, regardless of party (except maybe, Ron Paul) at every election until they get the message. They are serving the UN and its mandates, not the American people. Idaho’s Larry Craig, once a terrific Senator, now supports the will and wishes of Monsanto and the people be damned. I am sure he is just one example of a trend and is one heck of an arguement for term limits!
Comment Patricia Hampton — March 24, 2007 @ 9:05 am
My Grandmother’s victory garden and her innate distrust of the political right wing is my prime impetus for homesteading. I respect the small farmer and offer no quarter to those corporate ag interests who hate our freedom.
Comment Philip — March 24, 2007 @ 10:03 am
All right Walter translate please is the same old mumbo jumbo ? Sandy
Comment Sandy Toner — March 24, 2007 @ 11:31 am
Hope many know that Ron Paul is a candidate for the U.S. PRESIDENCY….that might be really good. He also is working to be included in any presidential debate forums….maby we should support him!?
Comment lyndeelou — March 24, 2007 @ 2:12 pm
I completely agree with Doreen’s comment.
Emerson actually introduced this a while ago, shortly after the commencement of the 110th Congress in January.
Unfortunately, it is the same bill as the Talent/Emerson legislation from last fall, with the same bad aspects — namely, it enshrines a “voluntary” NAIS in federal law, where none now exists (and we know just how “involuntary” that voluntary NAIS can be); and it gives the industrial farming shills and microchippers one of their most hoped-for benefits, the exemption from FOIA disclosure, which is bad for our side, because without such an exemption, at some point, the USDA premises-registration system will probably fail (because industrial farmers won’t want to put data into a system where it might be disclosed in response to FOIA requests).
Comment Mary Zanoni — March 24, 2007 @ 4:46 pm
“The perfect is the enemy of the good.”
No, this bill is not perfect; I can think of a number of ways I’d rather see it written, and some added features.
HOWEVER, it is a pretty decent start…a far cry from where we were a year or two ago. If the Feds go this way, in statute, then we have yet another challenge for our State legislatures: ” hey, the Feds decided it wasn’t worth the money and bother, so you shouldn’t waste our tax money either.”
Tom A
Comment Tom A — March 24, 2007 @ 6:01 pm
The pet food thing makes me very much wonder will it happen in people food. We get an awful lot of food from China and other countries now. Doesn’t make much sense to me buying grain from China when we produce it ourselves.
Victory garden…even if it’s two tomato plants in a barrell on the patio. That is that much less that comes from who knows where. Most of us live within a short distance of a farmers market or farm stand. Buy some. Help an american farmer rather than a chinese corporation. There are even farmers markets in NYC.
Comment Sue F — March 25, 2007 @ 2:43 am
The bill to “castrate nais” COULD be seen as a positive, depending on the meaning of “volunteer”. If it’s truly volunteer and doesn’t have a bunch of weasel words designed to lead us to mandatory or inhibit commerce and our lifestyles, what harm could it do?…
Isn’t “their” job to think of ways to “protect us” and waste our money? It’s not ???
Geez I’m about to choke on my lab meat sandwich…you mean
we could actually be okay with fewer stupid laws and less government interference in our lives?
You mean if we had no animal I.D. program and bought local, the world wouldn’t come crashing down?
What next? A balanced budget and real constitutional rights ? Smaller government?
Oh my, how will we survive!!
bottom line - don’t volunteer for stupid government programs, don’t elect those who think them up or fund them… if it ever becomes mandatory, defend your rights, and don’t eat lab meat sandwiches either!
Comment Bob Constantine — March 25, 2007 @ 6:00 am
Tom A, You’re right..it’s not perfect. It’s not good either. It’s just plain BAD. It’s not even good starting point or anything like that.
And I’m very disappointed to see Ron Paul put his name on this bill again.
And remember folks, Emerson is on the “Naughty List” for a reason.
Mari in Wis., the only thing Emerson has a “grip on” is the big dollars she gets from big agri-businesses!
Comment David Hannes — March 25, 2007 @ 8:39 am
Doreen is right again. This bill is the same as last years. I just compared the two. I was hopeful because of Ron Paul’s endorsement.
I suggest we set up an action alert to these four, and in the case of Ron Paul, remind him of his Texas Straight Talk article on May 29, 2007, entitled “Stop the NAIS”, where he said:
“In typical Washington-speak, NAIS is “voluntary” - provided USDA bureaucrats are satisfied with the level of cooperation. Trust me, NAIS will be mandatory within a few years. When was the last time a new federal program did not expand once implemented?”
Big talk, little (constitutional) action, Mr. Paul.
link
Comment Texas Goat Gal — March 25, 2007 @ 10:10 am
Re: Item 18 in particular.
Wow, you’re so sure that you’re totally right and everyone else is totally wrong –you should be in government, if you’re not there already!
It is close-minded, arrogant attitudes like those expressed in your comment that brought us NAIS, the American Community Survey, and all other government abominations forced down everybody else’s throat.
Tom A
Comment Tom A — March 27, 2007 @ 3:18 pm
I agree with Terry. It is high time WE THE PEOPLE speak! Forcefully! The SAME WAY WE ARE SPOKEN TO!
Time for another “Boston Tea Party” just on soil! People need to start standing up to our “government.”
Shame on them and then shame on us.
Comment Julie — April 13, 2007 @ 5:30 pm