Laws and Sausages

Dear Readers, I have been away, out of state, visiting my elderly parents. I have seen first hand what today's food is doing to people, my parents, my daughter, all the city folks. I even ate some of it and felt very ill afterwards. My parents eat 3 meals a day out and their health is failing. No wonder.
Speaking of food, just in from Doreen Hannes is the following. If you ever wondered how bills are turned into law, and the majority of them don't get that far, be sure to read this article. Keep fighting the good fight, fellow freedom loving people.

The Law and Sausage----

©Doreen Hannes March 17, 2008

There's an old saying a German friend of mine told me a long while ago, and it has proven to be true. It goes like this, "Those who love the law or sausage should not see either being made." I can't say that I was ignorant about sausage at all, but until last year, when I found myself in the ironic position of trying to get a law enacted to protect us from regulation, I wasn't aware of how completely ridiculous the legislative process actually was.

Since they took Civics out of public school long before I graduated from those hallowed halls, I hadn't much in the way of real knowledge beyond "I'm a Bill on Capitol Hill". I knew there were a lot of steps and that it wasn't easy, but not that it was actually perverse. Based on what I've learned, I'm going to tell you a little story, and I do hope you'll enjoy it.

The first step is to get a bill introduced. This is what people are continually sending you action alerts about "call to support this bill", or "contact to object to that bill". Getting something introduced is the easy part. They are read twice, meaning the summary is read, and then placed on the calendar to be referred to committee. Most legislation never goes beyond the introduction phase for various reasons. Perhaps because the power structure doesn't care about the issue, or possibly even the one who introduced the bill doesn't care about it, or even as a matter of popularity regarding the legislator who introduced the bill. But when it does go beyond the simple introduction, it can get very interesting in very short order. In the case of our bill, Missouri Senate Bill 428, it was a very good piece of legislation, that addressed several issues in NAIS and would have basically stopped the Missouri Dept of Agriculture from participating and made the program truly voluntary in Missouri kept it at the Federal level as well. It made it through committee unscathed, and then was read a third time, debated and voted upon. It made it through our Senate and left with a vote of 29 for and 2 against. Things were looking good.

Then it went to the House and all hell broke loose. Despite many appeals to Speaker Rod Jetton to have this bill assigned to a committee with a friendly Chair instead of an adversarial one, he assigned it to the House Ag Policy committee with Representative John Quinn as Chair. This is where it began to get interesting or sickening depending on your position. The hearing was given and several citizens testified for the bill alongside Senator Purgason, who was present as the author of the bill. Then those opposed to the bill testified against it. These included the usual suspects, Farm Bureau, and the Missouri Cattlemen's Beef Association, as well as a rep of the Pork Producers. We learned that one's testimony time could be yielded to another from the Catllemen, as three guys stood up and yielded their time to Mike John who I believe was testifying for both the Cattlemen and MFA (Missouri Farmer's Association) in opposition to the bill. He said many things that weren't entirely true and then made a whopper of a statement saying that "those who are opposed to NAIS are either, environmental extremists, animal rights activists, or people who want to sell diseased animals."

After the hearing was finished, Senate bill 428 was still in its original and desirable form. Then, the darling Rep. Quinn, who became the handler of the Bill in the house upon it being assigned to his committee, changed the 4 page positive bill into a 96 page negative bill that would establish statewide pro CAFO (concentrated animal feeding operations) zoning and also establish NAIS via statute along with many other less contentious things. This effectively morphed SB428 into an evil piece of legislation that now needed to be opposed instead of supported and the first rule of "careful with that legislation, honey" was learned. A bill may be great as introduced, then changed in committee before hearing, changed before being voted out of committee, then changed again on the floor before being perfected and voted upon, then changed again in the opposing house's committee, then changed again before being voted out of committee, then changed before leaving the floor and being perfected, then changed in conference committee. So backing a bill by it's number is a very, very dangerous thing to do. One may say "support XYZ bill as introduced", but watch what happens to it along the way, or you may be calling in support of something that does the exact opposite of it's original intent, or has had something else repugnant added to it along the way that would be worse than any possible good from the bill you were supporting.

On with the saga of SB428…..

Now the job of telling people to go against SB428 needed to be done. It still hadn't gotten out of committee, but if you like to track legislative history, you can see how the bill reads on the Missouri General Assembly website and how it read upon introduction as a comparison. Needless to say, people were a bit confused by the "We're for it"-"No, we're against it" dance.

Happily, this version of SB428 didn't make it out of committee, and was killed by time constraints. After the legislative session was out, Representative Quinn received the Farm Bureau Legislator of the Year Award ostensibly for his effective destruction of SB428,.However, we were left with trying to get an amendment slapped onto a different piece of ag legislation to protect the citizens of Missouri from regulation by the enactment of protective statute. (That's a mouthful, isn't it?) So Representative Dethrow introduced a smaller, less detailed and not as protective amendment to SB156, which had become an "omnibus ag bill", much to the chagrin of the senator who had introduced the original legislation. No one wants their legislation to get tangled up with the most controversial topics in the legislature, but it simply can't be helped in many cases.

After Rep Dethrow introduced this amendment, which passed on the House floor with a vote of 135 for and 10 against, we ran into another surprising facet of making sausage. We were called in to 'negotiate' on the verbiage with none other than Farm Bureau, the Cattlemen and MFA, all big lobbying groups at the Missouri Capitol and all in opposition to constraining NAIS in any way in the state of Missouri. We sat for a full day in the same room with these proponents of NAIS arguing about the word 'any', with the Department of Agriculture and the State veterinarian as well. We were told to come back the next day to continue to argue about the word 'any' and hopefully come to a conclusion. During a rather sleepless night away from home (again), I was struck by the realization that there was no point to this action at all. So in the morning, when we reconvened with all of those paid lobbyists and the salaried State employees, I said, " I see no reason to sit in a room discussing details with those who have been pushing for this program. The House and the Senate have done their job. The people have been represented, and you lose. If the shoe were on the other foot, you wouldn't agree to sit and argue with us after the vote had occurred. I will discuss particulars with the Governor's office, the Dept of Ag and the Attorney General's office, who are legitimate government bodies, but not with the groups who want this so they can make more money." They all left the room and we continued to argue about the word 'any' but now from separate rooms.

This went on all day until those in the other room on salary were done putting in their eight hours. The word 'any' still remained in its enigmatic form, and they were unhappy with their inability effect to change it after the vote.

Now the new vehicle for protective legislation against NAIS, SB156, had to go to conference committee. Conference committee is comprised of members of both the House and Senate and those members are appointed by the leaders of the respective houses and is convened when legislation regarding the same topic has gone through both houses with different language. Here, the ineffable Representative Quinn, again played the hand of Farm Bureau, whom we refer to as either the fourth arm of government in Missouri or the lobbying branch of the USDA, and put off two sessions of the Conference committee hearing. We, representing opponents of NAIS, were again sent into a room to discuss particulars and address verbiage concerns, but this time only with representatives of the Dept of Ag and the State vet. The governor's office and the Attorney Generals office had people present as well, and they approved of what we came up with. Finally, after we were not entirely happy with the compromise made, which would allow the Missouri Dept of Ag to register people and properties into NAIS for the purpose of adding value to their marketing, but otherwise constrained the Missouri Dept of Ag from implementing NAIS, the Department's Undersecretary, Matt Boatright, wanted us to allow the guy with one duck who wanted to go full on NAIS to be able to participate in this boondoggle of a federal program. We declined, and left about 11pm with the legislative session due to expire in three days.

The next day, the Conference Committee met and the 'compromise' bill with a clause added at the request of Quinn that would allow the Governor to overturn the bill if it affected commerce and was approved and voted out of committee with a 7-3 vote. Representative Quinn was the handler of SB156 and he signed off on it, saying he would bring it up on the floor where it needed to pass the House and then move on to pass the Senate, and be a finished piece of business. The last day came and the Senate was waiting to adjourn until after the House adjourned because they wanted to get this vehicle to constrain NAIS completed for the year. Despite the ability to pull the bill from Rep Quinn's hands and bring SB156 to the floor, Speaker Jetton decided to leave it in Quinn's hands to show his support for his chair appointment. Representative Quinn met Ray Cunio, (a fellow NAIS opponent and Property Rights advocate extraordinaire), while getting a cup of coffee and told him, "Ray, you may as well go home because I am not bringing it up." And he didn't. The House adjourned, and then the Senate adjourned….So ends the saga of this particular foray into the legislative process with SB428 and SB156 (along with HB747, HB428, HB478 all against NAIS) and no resolution of the problem.

Now we are in the midst of another legislative session, with a new bill that has legs, SB931, but it isn't as strongly restrictive against NAIS as is really necessary, and this bill has passed the Senate 28-3 and is likely to go into another committee headed up by yet another staunch supporter of the Farm Bureau…..And so the wheels of the sausage grinder turn.

====================

And this, no doubt, is how the fine freedom fighters in Missouri ended up feeling after all that was over. ~ Hen

Just for fun!

Channel surf the internet with the StumbleUpon toolbar to find great websites, videos, photos and more based on your interests. StumbleUpon learns what you like and makes better recommendations. It is fun and you find sites that you wouldn't normally, well, stumble upon.

So, stumbling rather than doing housework, I fell into What Breed of Conservative Are You? It's a quick little quiz. My results below, surprise, surprise, surprise...

My Conservative Identity:

You are an Anti-government Gunslinger, also known as a libertarian conservative. You believe in smaller government, states’ rights, gun rights, and that, as Reagan once said, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’”

Take the quiz at www.FightLiberals.com

Can't get no representation

If those congressmen are supposed to be representatives why don't they return phone calls and why, when they do talk to us, treat us like we are complete fools?

Of note, Under Secretary Bruce Knight bailed on a radio show he was supposed to do on Saturday, and if that weren't disrespectful enough, has thus far refused to answer our nine questions.

Senator Patrick Leahy's ag policy advisor has not, for a year now, returned my calls, responded to my emails and, when I knew it was him on the phone refused to tell me his name. He said he was not allowed to tell me his name.

Now, Representative Peter Welch has taken the side of the President of the Board of the St. Albans Coop telling me there is no NAIS or premises registration. When I spoke with Welch's ag policy advisor this morning she actually sighed loudly in my ear as if I was being a huge pain in the butt.

I'm tired of fighting against the federal machine.

Missouri Farm Bureau and SB 931

An Open Letter to our elected officials Missouri House of Representatives, Missouri Senate, Governor Matt Blunt

January 29, 2008 By Bob Parker, Texas County Missouri

Dear Legislators and Governor Blunt,

As a very concerned cattle producer in Missouri I am writing to voice my horror in what is happening on the Federal Level and in every State in this Union. USDA along with Farm Bureau and Big Ag interests, as well as Technology companies such as Veri-chip and Digital Angel, [See the membership list of NIAA] have conspired together to create the ultimate regulatory monster called The National Animal Identification System, or NAIS. As a member of Missouri Farm Bureau I was horrified to see that Missouri Farm Bureau President Charles Kruse sent a letter to USDA [July of 2005] saying that MOFB was supportive of a mandatory NAIS and that MOFB also supported the NAIS program going mandatory, this letter said in part;

[ We believe a mandatory Identification program will ultimately be necessary…] [all livestock species listed should be included…[29 species] [The suggested timeline for implementing NAIS is realistic ] MOFB letter July 6,2005

Note; The latest Document on NAIS, the 2008 NAIS business plan, states on page 41 that the 2005 NAIS draft plan that Mr. Kruse was commenting on “ remains the catalyst to achieve a uniform system nationwide and, on occasion, are added to.” In other words, the ’05 draft plan is still the foundation of NAIS.

Believe me, the last thing Charles Kruse wants is for you and Farm Bureau’s members to know about this letter and their involvement in pushing NAIS. Most members I know of that have seen this letter have left Missouri Farm Bureau. I was personally voted off my FB board in Texas County before I could show my other board members this letter after speaking out about it. This letter does not involve the grassroots, they didn’t even know about it or the details of NAIS and most still don’t! I was going to inform the members of this at the annual meeting but was removed so that couldn’t happen. So much for grassroots!

To read more about the expulsion go to;

http://henwhisperer.blogspot.com/2007/08/texas-county-missouri-farm-bureau.html

NAIS includes not only forcing livestock owners to register their farms, thereby subjecting themselves to unwarranted searches of their farms by USDA, but also tagging 29 species of animals with computer chips, some of which will be injected into the animal.

Additionally, NAIS will force farmers to report 14 events within 24 hours with USDA via computer or call in. I want you to know that the members of MOFB were never aware of the details of NAIS and MOFB has done everything in their power to cover-up the details of NAIS. I would be glad to come in and personally show you the facts. I would welcome Charles Kruse to be there and have to explain what he has done and how he has covered up the truth about NAIS to his membership. Mr. Kruse has sent letters to MOFB members saying that I am misrepresenting the facts about NAIS, but he has never answered me as to specifically what I am saying that is untrue or a misrepresentation.

Now you all have a letter from MOFB signed by MOFB Charles Kruse, dated Jan 28 ^th 2008 opposing SB 931.

The letter states MOFB policy; “We favor a voluntary (not a USDA or State Mandatory)…

I want to point out that NAIS is currently being rolled into all existing MANDATORY Missouri Dept of AG animal health programs. Just ask Missouri State Vet Taylor Woods. He told me himself that NAIS is being rolled into existing Health programs. The current cooperative agreement between USDA and MO Dept of Ag states on page 26 that premise numbers will be mandatory for import and export of livestock, friends, that will not be voluntary! MOFB has never told its members that!! If they have, where have they? Ask Leslie Holloway or Mr. Kruse for the documents where they told their members this. They do not represent the heart and soul of Missouri livestock owners!

On page 26 it also states Premise ID numbers will also be mandatory for all disease programs, Bovine TB, Brucellosis, Johne’s, Coggins testing, Scrapies, …ALL PROGRAMS!! Remember, NAIS is not just Premise Registrations; it is tagging, chipping, and TRACKING! 48 hour trace back! If you want to know how they intend to get 48-hour trace back you must understand what USDA and MOFB are proposing, but proponents never tell anyone the details until it is too late! Ask MOFB to show you where they have ever showed their members the details of what must be done to get 48-hour trace back! Ask Leslie Holloway for the documents. Ask Charles Kruse for the documents where members are told the details and then want that in their policy. They can’t, and believe me, they sure don’t want you to ask them for it. For the record, for two years I have begged them to tell their members that full story about NAIS, as far as I know, they never have! As a legislator you must ask yourself is this leadership of MOFB really representing their members interests? Honestly, how many farmers that you know would support this if they knew these details I have mentioned? Any?

Farm Bureau mentions that they are going to tell everyone how you vote on this. Your constituents may also have this letter. Which one will carry the most weight? I have no doubt I am telling the truth here and that time will prove me right. NAIS will be implemented in just a matter of months now. Just remember this letter after NAIS is implemented and your Farm community is devastated over the coming years. Will you just do nothing? Will you just talk about saving the farm but do nothing when it really matters? We need you to stop this now, not later. We are out of time…don’t let them tell you we can’t sell any livestock in the future without NAIS. We have gone 200 plus years as a country with out NAIS. Believe me, we will do just fine without it…

Opponents of NAIS have had over 22 meetings across Missouri in the last two years explaining the details of NAIS to the citizens of this great State. We have 12,000 signatures on petitions opposing NAIS. I appeal to you in the strongest of terms. Before you listen to proponents of NAIS, find out what is really happening with this program. I have asked at nearly every meeting how many oppose NAIS after hearing the facts right out of the USDA documents. 99.9% say they do not want this program!

I have been in the livestock industry all my adult life and also as a youth growing up on a farm. Never in my life have I seen a program that will devastate small farms like NAIS will. The costs involved, the labor involved, the liability involved, the list goes on and on.

I have registered cattle and a registered brand. I have always ID’d my cattle. I am proud of what I produce but I don’t want the government coming on my property and fining me and my healthy cattle for lost ear tags or other areas of non-compliance with NAIS. USDA already has disease protocol in place that have eradicated and controlled disease. These programs work. They will even tell you that these programs have worked so well they have trouble tracing animals because we are so disease free. Don’t let them tell you that we must have NAIS to survive, we can’t survive WITH NAIS as small producers.

This legislation, SB 931, will help to keep NAIS from being implemented in Missouri. It must be addressed on the Federal level too. Maybe we will lose this fight. Maybe we will have legislators that refuse to get the facts about NAIS before moving ahead. Maybe small farmers are a thing of the past. Maybe the fight is too big. Maybe the program is too complicated for most to understand until it is too late.

Maybe fascism and Big Government will take over every aspect of our lives before long. Maybe every living thing will be chipped, tracked, and regulated. Maybe the Federal and State Agencies really will take over America as our legislators relinquish their ability to govern with common sense and wisdom. Maybe we will have to have a premise number and chip our animals and report all movements within 24 hours, maybe we will have to have this number before we can buy or sell, maybe the principals that led our founding fathers are too old fashioned for our modern world to understand anymore, maybe our Constitutional freedoms and rights of free exercise and privacy and property rights are outdated, but so help me God, I will fight it until my last breath…

Sincerely,

Bob Parker

Raymondville, MO

417-457-6111 E-mail Bob@bakerealty.com

I will be glad to come and testify at hearings anytime. I do ask however that sufficient time be given to explain this program. This cannot be explained in the 5 minutes usually allowed. There are hundreds of pages of official documents on this program.

For more information about Farm Bureau and NAIS go to

http://www.propertyrights.org/org-act/ED2707.htm

http://xstatic99645.tripod.com/naisinfocentral/id69.html

www.nonais.org

http://forums.news-leader.com/viewtopic.php?p=40081&sid=2820a53fa2cff9ba3334b0655868d889

Whispers

Just had to put in a little video of Mitt Romney getting cues from someone on what he should be saying.

USDA Releases Business Plan and New User's Guide

The draft NAIS Business Plan has been released. It was published in the December 19 Federal Register.

And, as if it couldn't get any worse, a New Users Guide also has been released. Isn't the USDA genius with their timing, just around the holidays when they figure everyone is too busy to pay attention?

Just one more tidbit for you. This change was found in the Senate version of the Farm Bill, the one they passed.

Strike Section 10305 of Livestock title and replace with this section: (a) Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall promulgate regulations consistent with the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, et seq., regarding the disclosure of information submitted by farmers and ranchers who participate in the National Animal Identification System. The regulations promulgated, which shall be subject to a public comment period before finalizing, should address the protection of trade secrets and other proprietary and/or confidential business information that farmers and ranchers disclose in the course of participation in National Animal Identification System.

Listen up, you people. You better wake up before you find that there is no local food available. WAKE UP!!!

Wisconsin Premise ID enforcement put on hold

I think this it turning out to be the model test case for states trying to mandate NAIS. One hundred fifty ticked off farmers can make a difference.

The state of Wisconsin has stopped short, so far, of putting farmers who won’t accept a premise ID numbers, out of business.

The Wisconsin Department of Agriculture Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP) issued a press release Friday saying it would still allow milk transporters and creameries to accept milk from farms that did not have a premise ID.

Wisconsin's new farm premise ID law went into effect Tuesday.

One De Soto area farmer went so far as to say he may sue the state if it doesn’t back off on its mandatory premise ID program.

"I have informed them that if my milk license is not renewed I will bring legal action," said Vernon County producer Mark Brothun.

Brothun runs a 40-cow grade A operation near De Soto with his wife, Jane, and made those statements to the DATCP board last week

The DATCP board had convened in Madison specifically to address the issue of premise ID. Brothun and three other dairy producers were scheduled to be heard that day, but a standing room only crowd of about 150-people soon began demanding answers from the DATCP board about what happens after May 1 if a farm doesn't have an ID number.

A number of Amish producers were in attendance to see what will happen to members of their community if they objected to the number based on religious beliefs. A group of about 200 Amish farmers met last month near Cashton with Brian Rude of the DATCP board and state Sen. Dan Kapanke to air their concerns that the law violates Bible scripture, which prohibits the buying and selling of animals that are numbered.

The premise ID system was intended to give authorities an easy system to track animals and prevent the spread of disease should there be an outbreak.

When a cow was discovered in Washington State in 2003 that had BSE (mad cow disease) and another cow with the same disease was found in Canada, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Canadian government began developing the numbering system. In 2004, the USDA developed the National Animal Identification System (NAIS). The NAIS followed the model of other countries in Europe by including three basic elements, which are premise identification, animal identification and eventually movement tracking.

Many countries in Europe have required numbering of farms and individual animals for years. In the United States, the NAIS was set up as a voluntary system. In 2004, Wisconsin passed legislation making premise identification mandatory.

Since that time many states have attempted to implement the system with varying success, but most states have relaxed requirements in the face of opposition. Wisconsin appears to be the only state using enforcement tactics like threatening to withhold milk licenses for producers without the premise ID.

Brothun sees the mandatory aspect the Wisconsin law as a direct contradiction to the federal law.

"The federal law states this is voluntary and they have to allow exemptions," Brothun said. "The number is a federally-issued number and the state is taking $1.7 million from the federal government to implement this."

DATCP spokesperson Donna Gilson said the Wisconsin law is more restrictive than the federal law, but that is not unusual.

"States are always free to make more stringent regulation than the federal law," Gilson said. "The federal government is giving money to all states to implement this, not just Wisconsin, and there is nothing in the federal law that says you can't make it mandatory."

Gilson said states often require varying degrees of regulation. She cited a recent example of pseudorabies in Wisconsin hogs that prompted Michigan to place a ban on all hogs from Wisconsin. Gilson said that is stricter than other states which have only banned hogs from that specific herd or area of the state.

Another major objection to the requirement for Brothun is that the number for his farm would be from the federal government.

"This is federally-generated number that runs with the property forever," Brothun said. "I am all for animal health, but there is no reason the state cannot generate a number internally."

Brothun said the state already has his milk license number and the federal number will just give USDA officials authority to come onto his property in certain situations.

"They could come on property at anytime and draw blood or take samples," Brothun said. "And if they decide to implement the next step, which is individual animal ID, which is implanting chips, we will essentially have a national herd."

Gilson said the number has to be federally generated because the state is implementing the number system for the federal government and the idea was to have a system that allows states to communicate quickly in the case of an emergency.

"Animals cross state lines on a regular basis and it's important that this database can talk to that database, etc.," Gilson said.

Brothun said the regulation is supposed to apply to all farms, but dairy farmers are being targeted first because it is easy to force compliance by not renewing their milk license.

"What about beef farmers and chicken farmers?" Brothun asked. "Are they not going to be able to sell their animals at the stockyard?"

Brothun and others have argued that there is an exemption allowance in the federal regulation that allows producers out of the program if the cost exceeds the benefit. Brothun said the burden to his operation would exceed the benefit. Those arguments seem to be getting to some officials, including State Representative Barbara Gronemus (D-Whitehall), who originally sponsored the bill, but now is questioning its cost.

"I am really disappointed," Gronemus said. "Never did I think this would eliminate the farmer's ability to make a living. We have people with a legitimate product that has already been inspected. Why shouldn't they be able to sell that product just because of this language on the books?"

Gronemus said she introduced the bill on the request of agriculture committee chairman Al Ott (R-Forest Junction).

"They had made attempts to get it done and couldn't get people to join and then asked me to see if I could get it through," Gronemus said. "I could just kick myself for putting my name to it now."

Gronemus said she disagreed with the value of the number for fighting disease outbreaks.

"We had a pseudorabies outbreak in the 1980s just like we do now and we handled that," Gronemus said. "What purpose does this number serve? We already have milk inspectors (who) know where every farm is now. Can't we use some other number?"

Gronemus said the administrative rules that have come out of the bill are not what she intended.

"I wish it were required that every bill have a statement at the top saying what the author’s intent was," Gronemus said. "I have fought with Madison lawyers for years on that and they refuse to allow that. That way when it is made into an administrative rule they know what the intent of the bill was."

Gilson disagreed saying every administrative rule requires public hearings and is sent back to the legislature for review. Legislators can ask for revisions, or if no action is taken the rules become effective after a certain period of time. Gilson said there were additional changes and a number of public hearings for this administrative rule.

Those rules required compliance over a year ago, but Gilson said producers were allowed that time to come into compliance when the threat of not renewing milk licenses came up.

"Where were all of these people when we had all the public hearings?" Gilson asked.

Gronemus said she has considered repealing the bill, but fears she will not get enough votes to get it out of committee. Ott chairs the agriculture committee and Gronemus said he is determined to implement the program.

"His behavior at hearings was so angry and defensive," said Gronemus. "If I were the chairman of that committee I would be demanding answers, but Mr. Ott is of different thinking."

Gronemus said she disagrees with refusing to pick up milk as an enforcement tool.

"What is a farmer supposed to do? Put a cork in the cow?" Gronemus asked. "They have to be milked everyday. They don't just stop."

When asked what he will do with his milk if DATCP enforces the law by not renewing his milk license, Brothun says he will likely be dumping his milk.

"I have informed them I am paid up and I have passed all my inspections and there is no reason not to issue my license," Brothun said. "If they don't I am ready to take legal action and I guess I will have to dump it."

As of Friday Brothun appears to have received a reprieve from the regulation, but only time will tell if that reprieve is temporary or if DATCP will continue to pursue mandatory enforcement.

Toll Road Giant Buys Newspapers to Silence Critics

Do you know about the Trans-Texas Corridor? The idea is to extend the rebuilt I-35 NAFTA super-corridor highway all the way from Laredo, Texas, to Canada, with extensions in Canada to be built out to Montreal in the east and Vancouver in the west. In Mexico, the super-corridor will connect via Mexican railroads with the port at Lazaro Cardenas. It is being built because of the coming North American Union. A good take can be found here. The government's website for the North American Union can be found here. Its name is Security and Prosperity Partnership Of North America.

I'm not making this up, folks. This is why you have to wake up to what is going on in Washington. As you learn more, you come to understand how NAIS is just the tip of the iceberg.

Toll Road Giant Buys Newspapers to Silence Critics
Critics charge that the Macquarie purchase of American Consolidated Media is designed to silence critics of a Texas toll road project.

Australian toll road giant Macquarie agreed Wednesday to purchase forty local newspapers, primarily in Texas and Oklahoma, for $80 million. Macquarie Bank is Australia's largest capital raising firm and has invested billions in purchasing roads in the US, Canada and UK. Most recently the company joined with Cintra Concesiones of Spain in a controversial 75-year lease of the 157-mile Indiana Toll Road.

Sal Costello, the leading opponent of toll road projects as head of the Texas Toll Party, says the move is directly related to a 4000-mile toll road project known as the Trans-Texas Corridor. It will cost between $145 and $183 billion to construct the road, expected to be up to 1200 feet wide, requiring the acquisition of 9000 square miles of land in the areas through which it will pass.

"The newspapers are the main communication tool for many of the rural Texan communities, with many citizens at risk of losing their homes and farms through eminent domain," Costello wrote.

Many of the small papers purchased, most have a circulation of 5000 or less, have been critical of the Trans-Texas Corridor. An article in the Bonham Journal for example, states, "The toll roads will be under control of foreign investors, which more than frustrates Texans."

Congressman Ron Paul

Ron Paul, the congressman from Texas who tried to get an amendment passed to defund NAIS in May 2006 is doing an exploratory committee on a run for President. I like him because he is a strong Constitutionalist.

From his website

Congressman Ron Paul of Texas enjoys a national reputation as the premier advocate for liberty in politics today. Dr. Paul is the leading spokesman in Washington for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies based on commodity-backed currency. He is known among both his colleagues in Congress and his constituents for his consistent voting record in the House of Representatives: Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution. In the words of former Treasury Secretary William Simon, Dr. Paul is the "one exception to the Gang of 535" on Capitol Hill.

It is good to have someone inside the beltway who actually remembers the oath of office.

http://www.ronpaulexplore.com/

Report of the Committee on Livestock Identification of the U.S. Animal Health Association (USAHA)

This is an alert by Mary Zanoni.

The following document is the Report of the Committee on Livestock Identification of the U.S. Animal Health Association, from a meeting on October 17, 2006. Present at the meeting were USDA Undersecretary Bruce Knight, Dr. John Clifford, Dr. John Wiemers, and Neil Hammerschmidt.

http://www.usaha.org/committees/reports/2006/report-id-2006.pdf

On p. 14 of this document we have a hint about a very dangerous game that the USDA may be intending to play with our way of life and our ability to keep livestock. The last paragraph on page 14 describes a recommendation that this Committee of the USAHA has made to the USDA. The Committee has recommended that, prior to July 1, 2007, the USDA should promulgate an "interim rule" that would prohibit interstate movement of cattle from any state that fails to REQUIRE THAT ALL BREEDING AGE CATTLE BE OFFICIALLY IDENTIFIED at each change of ownership. Such an "interim rule" would make it impossible for any state to resist, because it would become economically isolated. Also note that an "interim rule" can be promulgated WITH NO PRIOR OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.

Is the USDA planning to follow this Committee recommendation and force NAIS upon the entire nation by means of a dictatorial "interim rule"? It is bad enough that the USDA has been killing off American agriculture for decades; don't let them kill off democracy.

Please send a copy of this message to your U.S. Congressman and your two U.S. Senators. This scheme must be stopped in its tracks.

Mary Zanoni

The USDA must be stopped. Who is responsible for the oversight of the USDA? Is the USDA the mafia? Something is very wrong with this picture. And, imagine this, this is just one tiny thing that is happening behind the scenes, without our knowledge. It's just the tip of the iceberg.

To see what other people are saying about this, click through to Nonais.org.

Washington state files no NAIS bill

Activists in the State of Washington have put forth a House Bill 1151 to stop NAIS.

Read the text of the bill here (note it is a PDF file and you'll need Adobe Reader to view it).

Contact your state representatives to support them to vote for this bill.

Virginia files no NAIS bill

HOUSE BILL NO. 1990
Offered January 10, 2007
Prefiled January 5, 2007
A BILL to amend the Code of Virginia by adding a section numbered 3.1-14.4, relating to the National Animal Identification System.
———-
Patron– Wittman
———-
Referred to Committee on Agriculture, Chesapeake and Natural Resources
———-

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:

1. That the Code of Virginia is amended by adding a section
numbered 3.1-14.4 as follows:

§ 3.1-14.4. National Animal Identification System.

The Commissioner of Agriculture and Consumer Services shall ensure that the Department does not participate in or provide any assistance to the establishment of the National Animal Identification System or any substantially similar program.

Make sure you call your state reps and support them to vote for this bill.

Missouri files a no NAIS bill

FIRST REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE BILL NO. 422

94TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

---

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES WHORTON (Sponsor), SMITH (150), KUESSNER,
WALLACE AND DOUGHERTY (Co-sponsors).

Read 1st time January 16, 2007 and copies ordered printed.

D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

1156L.01I

---

AN ACT

To amend chapter 267, RSMo, by adding thereto one new section relating to the national animal
identification system.

---

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, as follows:

Section A. Chapter 267, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 267.165, to read as follows:

267.165. The department of agriculture shall not participate in the national animal
identification system (NAIS) administered by the United States Department of Agriculture
absent specific statutory authorization for such participation.

-MO House Bill 422

If you live in Missouri, call your state reps and give them support for the bill.

The 2006 Agricultural Identification Survey and the NASS/NAIS Identity

Copyright 2007 by Mary Zanoni. The following article may be distributed solely for personal and non-commercial use without prior permission from the author. Non-commercial distribution and posting to assist in disseminating information about NAIS is, in fact, encouraged, so long as proper credit is given and the article is reproduced without changes or deletions. Any other distribution or republication requires the author’s permission in writing and requests for such permission should be directed to the author at the address/phone/e-mail address below.

The 2006 Agricultural Identification Survey and the NASS/NAIS Identity

by

Mary Zanoni, Ph.D., J.D.

P.O. Box 501

Canton, NY 13617

315-386-3199

mlz@slic.com

January 17, 2007

Like many small-farm advocates, I have been fielding questions over the past few weeks about the above survey being sent out by the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). Many people ask if there is any relationship between the survey and the data being collected (often without the knowledge or consent of farmers) for the National Animal Identification System (NAIS). As we shall see, although USDA personnel won’t admit it, NASS data is the foundation of the USDA’s aggressive pursuit of NAIS.

To my great surprise, in this morning's mail I myself received a 2006 Agricultural Identification Survey (2006 AIS). I say "to my great surprise," because I am not and never have been engaged in any type of commercial agriculture whatsoever. I have never before received any type of communication from NASS.

The envelope states in very large letters, "YOUR RESPONSE IS REQUIRED BY LAW." The envelope further states that the due date is January 29, 2007. As explained below, it is clear that many people receiving this form are not in fact "REQUIRED BY LAW" to answer it. Further, a recipient has only a couple of weeks between the receipt of the form and the purported deadline, and it would be impossible for the average non-lawyer to do enough research within that time to figure out whether he/she is or isn't actually required to respond.

The form itself begins with several general questions, such as “Do you own or rent any land?” “Do you grow vegetables, hay or nursery stock?” “Do you receive government payments?” The questions appear deliberately designed to imply that anyone who would answer “yes” is among those “REQUIRED BY LAW” to fill out this form. The USDA is thus casting a very wide net in this particular intrusion into the lives of American citizens, because, frankly, just about everyone who is not homeless “owns or rents” real estate; some 75 million people in the United States “grow vegetables;” and some 60 million people receive “government payments.” (See 2007 Statistical Abstract of the United States, Table 1226 (vegetable gardening); Table 528 (government transfer payments).)

Now, perhaps it is possible that this “wide net” might not be as intrusive as it appears. After all, maybe NASS has only sent this form to people reasonably assumed to be farmers. But in fact it was distressingly easy to confirm that intrusiveness and deliberate over-inclusiveness are the hallmarks of the NASS approach. This morning, I called the information number listed on the form and spoke to a woman at the USDA’s Helena, Montana call center. According to her, the call center is being swamped with calls from people who live in cities and have nothing to do with agriculture. She stated that the call center employees really have no idea of why or how all these people have been sent the 2006 AIS. When asked for some conjecture as to how so many unnecessary people could have been included in the mailings, the woman explained that, for example, anyone who had ever subscribed to a “horse magazine” might have been included in the database.

Now, that raises interesting questions. How is the USDA/NASS getting the subscription lists of “horse magazines”? Why and how are “horse magazines,” or, for that matter, any rural-life publication, any breed association, feed store, or private or public livestock or horticultural enterprise whatsoever, giving their member/subscriber/customer lists to the government without telling their members, subscribers, or customers?

Or, worse yet, how is the government accessing such lists or databases without the awareness of the businesses or organizations in question? During times when the Executive Branch of the United States Government has secretly gathered the records of most people’s incoming and outgoing phone calls, and the President asserts a right to open your mail and my mail without a warrant, this is not a trivial question.

Returning to the first page of the form, we see the wide net growing ever wider. The form states: “Many people who don’t consider themselves farmers or ranchers actually meet the definition of a farm or ranch and are important to agriculture.” “We need your completed form even though you may not be actively farming, ranching, or conducting any other type of agricultural activity.” Finally, the first page of the form reinforces the threat of the “REQUIRED BY LAW” language of the envelope:

“ ‘Response to this survey is legally required by Title 7, U.S. Code.’ ” (Emphasis in original.) (Note the single-double quotation marks – the threat actually is in quotation marks, employing that common tenth-grade stylistic conceit of “quoting” something to make it appear extra-important.) One senses evasions aplenty here -- the form has referred to the “definition of a farm or ranch” but nowhere tells us that definition. It suggests that anyone receiving a form has a legal obligation to answer it, even though their enterprise may not meet the definition of a “farm.”

Given the foregoing ambiguities, I had further questions about the definition of a “farm” and the possible legal penalties for not responding to the 2006 AIS. Specifically, I asked if my understanding of the definition of “farm” as an operation with at least $1000 in sales from agriculture was correct. (See 2002 Census of Agriculture, FAQs, www.nass.usda.gov/census_of_agriculture/frequently_asked_questions/index.asp#1.) Further, having found the penalty listed in 7 USC § 2204g (d) (2), namely, that a “person . . . who refuses or willfully neglects to answer a question . . . . shall be fined not more than $100,” I noted that, insofar as the 2006 AIS actually contains 42 separate questions, it could be important to know whether there was a separate $100 fine for each unanswered question, or just a single $100 fine for not answering the entire 2006 AIS. These questions were beyond the purview of the call-center woman, so she made a note of the questions, referred them to a member of the NASS professional staff, and promised that the NASS staff member would call me with the answers.

The next day, January 12, 2007, I received a call from Jody Sprague, a NASS statistician. First we addressed the question of the “farm” definition. Ms. Sprague conceded that someone whose property or operation did not meet the “farm” definition would have no obligation to answer the 2006 AIS. She also conceded that the basic definition of a “farm” as an operation with at least $1000 in agricultural sales was correct, but explained that in addition to the gross sales figures, NASS also assigns certain “point values” for particular agricultural activities. If the points add up to 1000, your operation would meet the definition of a “farm.” When asked for an example of how the point values work, Ms. Sprague explained that 5 equines would equal a farm but 4 would not. (Subsequently, she explained that each equine equals 200 points.) When asked how many cattle equal a “farm,” Ms. Sprague said she did not know. At one point Ms. Sprague said that NASS wanted, through the 2006 AIS, to determine if they could delete people who should not be on their mailing list. But for the most part she contended the opposite, e.g., that she would “advise” anyone who had received the form to fill it out; and that even a person with one horse should complete the questionnaire, although she previously had conceded that someone with fewer than 5 horses would not meet the definition of a “farm” and therefore would not be required to fill out the survey.

We next turned to the issue of how NASS may have compiled its mailing list for the 2006 AIS. First Ms. Sprague maintained that the sources of the NASS mailing list are “confidential.” I noted the call-center woman’s reference to a subscription to a “horse magazine” as a source of names, and asked for some other possible sources. Ms. Sprague said that growers’ associations, such as the Wheat Growers’ Association and Barley Growers’ Association, were examples of sources. I asked for more examples but she was reluctant to give any, claiming that some are “confidential” and some are “not confidential.” She explained the overall process of list building thus: as NASS comes across lists where there are “possibilities of agricultural activity,” NASS incorporates those names into its mailing list.

We returned to the subject of “point values” for different livestock. Explaining that many people were likely to have questions about this, I asked if Ms. Sprague could find out for me the point values of cattle or other non-equine livestock. She put me on hold for a long while. Subsequently, she gave me the following point values: beef cattle, 310 points per head; dairy cattle, 2000 points per head; goats and sheep, 50 points per head. (I wanted to ask about chickens, but I was getting the distinct sense that I might be pushing my luck.)

Ms. Sprague stressed that she did not want people to be concentrating on the point values. For example, she noted that people should not say they have 4 horses if they really have 5 horses, “because it wouldn’t be ethical.” (But apparently under the NASS moral code, rummaging through some of those Choicepoint-type consumer profiles to track your reading habits is perfectly “ethical.” And, as we shall see, the NASS moral code also permits forking over your data to states that are in hot pursuit of the NAIS premises-registration quotas imposed as a condition for the states’ continued receipt of federal NAIS grant money.)

We went on to the question of the $100 non-compliance fine. Ms. Sprague assured me that a farmer’s failure to answer any or all of the 42 total questions on the 2006 AIS would only result in a single $100 fine. She also said that the fine is “rarely enforced” and that if any “producer” “chooses” not to report, no one from NASS would seek them out.

Finally, I asked Ms. Sprague if there were any relationships between NASS and the APHIS NAIS program, and she said, “Absolutely none.” I asked her if any other agency, state or federal, would ever be allowed to use NASS’s database to solicit premises IDs for NAIS, and she said, “Absolutely not.” And indeed, pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 2204g (f) (3), “Information obtained [for NASS surveys] may not be used for any purpose other than the statistical purposes for which the information is supplied.”

Several weeks ago, Missouri antiNAIS activist Doreen Hannes sent a series of questions about Missouri’s solicitation of NAIS premises IDs to Steve Goff, DVM, the Animal ID Administrator of the Missouri Department of Agriculture (MDA). Dr. Goff provided written answers on December 20, 2006. When asked where the MDA had obtained addresses for its solicitation of NAIS premises IDs, Dr. Goff stated: “the mailing was done through a contract with the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service.”

I won’t answer my 2006 Agricultural Information Survey. Instead, I will send a copy of this article to my Congressman and my two United States Senators. I will ask them to have the House and Senate Agriculture Committees investigate the rampant and shameful abuses of federal law and common morality inherent in NASS’s compilation of its mailing lists and use of those lists to promote the APHIS National Animal Identification System. Why will I do this? Because I don’t live by the USDA’s false code of ethics; I answer to a higher authority.

A good news Friday! Part 2

Rep. Ron Paul, the iconoclastic, nine-term lawmaker from southeast Texas, took the first step yesterday toward a second, quixotic presidential bid - this time as a Republican.

Just shake them up, Ron!