Posted on 09/15/2006 10:10:02 AM PDT by Warhammer
BTTT
What's the history? Was NAIS authorized by congress, or did the little goosestepping bureaucrats think it up all by themselves?
They want to put farming under government control. It's part of the UN CODEX agreemant.
Here's a thread with more information: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1592524/posts
the small livestock producers around here who are aware of it (NAIS) are against it.
Talent-Emerson Bill Betrays NAIS Opposition
The National Animal Identification System (NAIS) cannot be found in the U.S. Code. Should the Talent Emerson bill [S3862, HR6042] 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 USDAs 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 wont 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.
Thanks for the analysis!
I imagine that the Democrats will be happy enough for yet another huge growth of government bureaucacy, so I imagine that the USDA will not be stopped in this nutty enterprise.
self ping
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.