Iowa ‘ag gag’ bill stalls as 2011 legislature ends, but stays in place for 2012

When Iowa lawmakers went home Thursday, traveling through blistering June heat after the gavel finally fell on the exhaustive 2011 General Assembly that was supposed to have ended in April, one of their year’s most controversial bills remained in limbo.

A proposed law that would make it a felony to shoot, distribute, or even possess photographs or videos of animal use facilities without permission from those facilities’ owners had sat in the Senate for almost four months, the target of numerous amendments from legislators hoping to shore it up as well as from others trying to tear it down.

House File (HF) 589 also has drawn ire and fire from animal protection groups who depend on their undercover investigators’ shocking photos and videos to document the abuse they say runs rampant in places like Iowa’s “factory farm” pork and poultry producing companies—which are some of the nation’s largest.  

Organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) oppose the bill, too, on grounds that it would violate First Amendment rights to free speech and a free press.

A majority of 65 percent of Iowa voters weighed in against the so-called “ag gag” bill when asked about it by Mason-Dixon Polling & Research, Inc. in March.

Similar bills introduced this year stalled or failed to pass in Florida, Minnesota, and New York.

Nevertheless, with the sponsorship of cattle rancher Rep. Annette Sweeney and backing by Monsanto, DuPont, and other mammoth agriculture corporations and trade associations, the so-called “ag gag” bill passed the House, cleared the Senate Agriculture Committee, then survived efforts by determined opponents like Sen. Matt McCoy—who calls it “unconstitutional” and “unconscionable”—to cripple it with amendments.

When legislators head back to the Des Moines Capitol in January 2012, the Hawkeye state's mercury will be at the other end of the thermometer, and House File 589 will be waiting for them.

For an explanation, Animal Policy Examiner spoke by telephone Thursday evening with Rep. Jim Lykam, who opposes the bill, believing that it violates First Amendment freedoms and that it would have a “chilling effect” on whistleblowers who would be afraid to document suspected animal abuse.

[Read APE’s previous interview with Lykam.]

Q&A WITH IOWA REP. JIM LYKAM

ANIMAL POLICY EXAMINER (APE):  Rep. Lykam, could you explain the status of HF 589?

REP. JIM LYKAM: It passed in the House, and then it went over to the Senate, and it did not pass the Senate, so there’s no action on it this year. But I’m sure that somebody will try to see if they can resurrect it in the second year of our two-year legislative cycle. My best guess is they will try to resurrect that bill next year.

APE: That would be January?

LYKAM: Yes, January 12th.

APE: And would it just pick up where it left off?  How would that work?

LYKAM: Well, see, in the second year of the cycle, it doesn’t have to be re-filed, but it would have to pass the Senate, and then come back to us [in the House] again. It wasn’t acted on, so it’s still alive into the second year.

APE:  So it’s not even a matter of it being re-introduced. It’s just still there.

LYKAM:  Right. It’s still there. It doesn’t have to be re-introduced, but it would still have to pass both houses again next year, and then go on to the governor.

APE:  The senate really never debated it this year, right?

LYKAM:  It came out of the Ag [Agriculture] Committee there, but then it was never debated on the senate floor. It just sat on the calendar.

APE:  And they made a lot of amendments to it.

LYKAM:  There were a lot of amendments. It got so hectic [during the final days of the 2011 legislative session this week] that I don’t know if they tried to do an amendment here at the very end this week, too.

There was a lot of talk back and forth, but the big thing was the budget.We were just trying to get a budget passed, because our fiscal year ends tonight at midnight, and we had to make sure it passed, because otherwise there are questions on which state operations would not be functioning, so we were in kind of a hot seat.

APE:  There was an amendment to the bill just this week, but I couldn’t figure out what it was.

Article continues below. Please scroll past ad.

LYKAM:  I can’t either because we were so bogged down with the other budget stuff that I didn’t even get over to the Senate. We were just trying to adjourn and get this marathon session over with. [Next year the Senate] could just go ahead and refer it to the Ag Committee again, pass it again, then it goes right back out on the calendar.

APE:  And you do believe that will happen?  Does it seem to you that the support is there?

LYKAM: Yes, there must’ve been a lot of interest in it, because if they tried another amendment to get that out there, then yes, there were still some people fighting for that.

APE:  Is this bill dividing along party lines?

LYKAM:  No, no. This crossed party lines.

APE:  Right, because I think I remember that in the House there were nine Democrats who voted for it.

LYKAM:  I think you’re right. Some of the rural hog producers supported it.

APE:  Does it seem to you that any of the national attention—or you might say notoriety—that this bill has gotten will have any effect on Iowa legislators?

LYKAM:  Well, I think that the more notoriety that it gets, the emails pick up, and you get comments from your constituents, so it’s not going to sneak through.  It’s going to be very well-known what’s going on with it, and there will probably be considerable opposition.

APE:  Did the incident this week—the release of the gruesome Mercy for Animals undercover video showing alleged abuses of pigs at Iowa Select Farms—and all the fuss about it—do you think that had any effect on the minds of voters one way or the other?

LYKAM: I don’t know how that will carry forward. I mean, there could be other [undercover] recordings in the summer or fall or whatever and I think as we get close to session then people are paying more attention to these things.  But we definitely had people talking about it.

APE:  That undercover video that just came out—do you think that will have a positive or negative effect on the bill’s future?

LYKAM:  It’s hard to say because we’re almost six months from when we go back in, and a lot of people maybe only get the weekly paper, and of course now we’re coming into July and vacation, and the kids are out.  To me, if all of a sudden one of these videos pops up in early December or something, when we’re a month away from the legislative session, rather than now when you have almost six months to go before we go back in, then it would be more on people’s minds.

APE:  Is it correct terminology to say the bill has stalled?  What term would you use?

LYKAM:  I would say that would be correct.  It passed the House, and stalled in the Senate. It made it out of committee but it just sat on the calendar.

APE:  A few months ago we talked at length about your opposition to HF 589. I assume you are still opposed to it?

LYKAM:  Yes, I voted against it. And if it were to come back, I would still be opposed.

When contacted for comment about Monsanto's support of HF 589, company spokesmanTom Helscher replied in an email as follows: "We joined with many others with agriculture interests in Iowa to support HF 589.  For details about the legislation I suggest you contact the Iowa Poultry Association."

DuPont has not yet replied to APE's requests for comment.

Rep. Annette Sweeney did not immediately return requests for comment this week, but spoke with APE at length in a previous series of interviews.

Please visit APE again for interviews with Kevin Vinchattle of Iowa Poultry Association, Ron Birkenholz of Iowa Pork Producers Association, Tom Colvin of Animal Rescue League of Iowa, and more on House File 589.

SUBSCRIBE to Animal Policy Examiner for continuing coverage of this animal issue and more. It's anonymous and free. Your email address is given to no one else. Click on the ‘subscribe’ button above to receive an email letting you know whenever there's a new article. Thanks for reading!