RELIEF Act Update -- NAMM Import-Export Task Force

[dberkowitz]

I spent the last three days in DC meeting with the NAMM Import-Export Task Force regarding the Cooper-Blackburn “RELIEF” Act, H.R. 3210 which proposes a surgical change to the Lacey Act, including:

• Grandfathering of all products manufactured, and all materials imported, prior to the enactment of the 2008 amendments to Lacey;
• Inclusion of an innocent owner clause that puts the burden on importers and manufacturers rather than consumers to know the law;
• Reduction of fines for first offenses;
• Establishment of a database of foreign forestry and related laws by APHIS/FWS so that manufacturers aren’t trying to keep track of everything worldwide.

The first evening was a dinner and a spirited discussion from the participants about Lacey, the proposed legislation, what the legislation does and doesn’t address and why.

The second day we spent meeting with Congressman Jim Cooper, D-Tenn who talked about the legislative process, approaches to talking about the legislation, simplifying and coalescing our message. We met with a representative of the International Wood Forest Products Association, who talked about Lacey’s legislative history, who is supporting the proposed bill, some of the back discussions that occurred when Lacey was passed.

We then met with Tim Van Norman of FWS, and George Baladay and his colleague Gary Lougee about how the regulatory process is and is not working and how it can be streamlined. This is a preliminary discussion one that all parties hopes results in a working group to make the regulatory process more efficient. NAMM will move forward to establish this to achieve clarity and hopefully refinements in the regulatory process for all in the music products industry. Understand that APHIS is getting 7000 electronic declarations and 1200 hard copy declarations a week that are processed by only Balady and Lougee – that’s it. The same holds true at FWS, which is part of the problem.

The remainder of the day was spent training how to meet with congressional staffers and representatives and unifying the message. Yesterday we divided up and had meetings with Congressional representatives to discuss the proposed legislation and ask for their support. Thus far, it is positive, with limited push back. But understand there is push-back from the environmental NGO’s and some of the wood industry who don’t want Lacey opened to debate at all.

In the next week we’ll have a template letter from which you can write to your own representatives to ask for their support of the bill. I urge you to adhere to the letter. There are lots of things we’d like the bill to do, but right now this is what we can get done – we need to keep the message unified, and as Congressman Cooper said, “Keep the cookies on the low shelf” in other words, keep the message simple and accessible. Discussing stuff outside the bill will only complicate the message.

More to come.

David D. Berkowitz
Berkowitz Guitars

[Bob Womack]

Thanks for the update!

Bob

[k.crabbe]

Thanks David. I appreciate the time and effort you are putting into this. Keep us posted.

[Howard Klepper]

David, is there a draft of the bill available?

Is it clear to the Congresspersons involved that the innocent owner provision must exempt from forfeiture as well as civil and criminal penalties? Forfeiture may seem to be obviously a kind of penalty, but as a technical term of law it is not the same, and should be mentioned specifically in the bill for clarity.

Thanks for your work on this.

[Glennwillow]

Hi David,

Yes, thanks for the update. That's great that you are so involved with this new legislation. I will look forward to seeing the letter when it's available.

- Glenn

[dberkowitz]

http://cooper.house.gov/images/stories/hr3210ih.pdf