Support for the proposed King amendment is growing, as a group of agricultural organizations is urging members of Congress to make sure the provision is included in the next farm bill.
The King amendment, formally known as the Protect Interstate Commerce Act (PICA) was introduced within the House version of the farm bill. The bill was designed to prevent states from regulating farm animal production in other states.
For Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, who introduced the legislation, this would protect his state’s egg industry from laws in other states, such as California and Massachusetts that have laws that set restrictions on how hens that lay eggs that are sold in in their state are raised, regardless of where they are raised.
National Egg Farmers believes PICA needs to be included in the farm bill, as it both upholds the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution and also would put to an end the practice of some states implementing laws requiring farmers to adhere to their method of production that goes beyond how other farmers are producing their products.
National Egg Farmers, along with the American Feed Industry Association, the National Chicken Council, American Farm Bureau Federation and the National Pork Producers Council, signed a letter in an effort to convince Congress to approve a farm bill that includes PICA.
King continues push
In a letter sent to fellow members of Congress, King made the case for the King amendment, saying it promotes free trade between states. King posed the question, “How can we promote free trade and market access with other nations when we do not protect free trade and market access between our 50 states and U.S. territories?”
“Some will say that the Federal government should stay out of how states regulate their agriculture production. This would seem fair, but what PICA is trying to fix is a state regulating another state. I do not believe that farmers from Iowa, Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska, Minnesota, Alabama, and the list could go on, want other states like California, Michigan and Massachusetts telling them how to farm,” King added.
PICA has recently been under attack by groups with a history of being adversaries to animal agriculture, like the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS).
But King and others argue that claims by HSUS about PICA are false, including the HSUS claim that PICA attempts to nullify state laws aimed at protecting states from invasive pests. “That is simply not true,” King wrote. “PICA says that the Federal government has that responsibility under the Commerce Clause, not the states.”
Amendment faces some opposition in Senate
The King amendment was also recently targeted in a letter sent to Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kansas, and Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Debbie Stabenow, D-Michigan. That letter urged the committee to not support inclusion of PICA in the farm bill, and was signed by 32 U.S. senators, led by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California. All but three of those who signed the letter were Democrats.
“If enacted, this amendment would undermine numerous state laws and infringe on the fundamental rights of states to establish regulations within their own borders,” the senators wrote. “We want to thank you for not including this provision in the Senate bill, and strongly encourage you to reject this provision in any form in the final conference report.”
King also proposed a similar amendment to be included in the present farm bill, but it was not included in the one that was approved and signed by President Barack Obama in 2014.
