The bill sparked a debate on state laws about production standards for eggs and meat. Ag amendment breaks some eggs

Pigs, chickens, the U.S. Constitution — and a dose of olive oil — all got thrown together in a House farm bill markup that took a remarkable turn from the barnyard to the judicial bench late Wednesday night.

“I’m one of these country lawyers, which is no lawyer at all,” Rep. Jim Costa (D-Calif.) was candid to say at the outset. But that didn’t stop him or most of the House Agriculture Committee from plunging into an hour-long debate on the constitutional fine points of the interstate commerce clause and state laws excluding eggs or meat that don’t meet local production standards.


Well “fine points” may be a stretch. “Let’s be honest folks. You can dress the pig up anyway you want …but at the end of the day it’s a pig,” said Rep. Kurt Schrader (D-Ore.), offering his legal analysis as a trained veterinarian.

Before the dust settled, the committee had adopted a far-reaching amendment that infuriated animal welfare groups, delighted the pork and beef lobbies and broke more than a few eggs. Where it goes next in the context of the larger farm bill debate, no one truly knows. But scores of state laws could be impacted and it surely reaches well beyond its initial target: sunny California.

Most simply the language would bar any state from excluding the marketing of “agricultural products” if they have been grown in a manner “pursuant” to federal law and the laws of the state or locality from which they come.

Proponents argue that this is needed to allow the free flow of farm commerce across state lines. But for animal welfare groups, it’s a huge Catch 22, since the same committee continues to resist any new federal standards for raising livestock — preferring to leave the issue to farmers and individual states.

California is a pivotal battleground because it is both a giant producer and market.

In the case of animal agriculture, the state is recognized as a leader in demanding better protection for livestock, especially since a 2008 ballot referendum that required the egg industry to provide more running room for its hens.

But when the California legislature followed up by enacting a law demanding that all eggs sold in the state meet the new standards, it ruffled feathers as far away as Iowa — a major egg exporter. And Iowa Rep. Steve King, now a senior Republican on the Agriculture panel, began beating the drum for Congress to take a stand.

“In effect, they are simply imposing a national standard from within a state and that’s exactly what our Founding Fathers opposed,” King told his colleagues Wednesday night. And the Iowa conservative had the all-important backing of Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), who not only sits on Agriculture but also chairs the House Judiciary Committee and happens to be a lawyer.

To hear Goodlatte tell it, this is not a question of state rights but protectionist trade barriers. If the U.S. continues down this path “We are going to Balkanize American agriculture,” he said.

“The state of California has an absolute right and the people of California have an absolute right to tell their producers in California how they are going to raise agricultural products,” Goodlatte argued. “But they cannot — without challenge by the Congress — say no other product from any other state can come in unless it complies with those regulations.”

“I do blame the state of California for always trying — with a big market like that — to say `Do it our way or stay out of our state.’”

Rep. Jeff Denham (R-Calif.) shot back that his fellow Republicans were using one clause in the constitution, interstate commerce, to trample another, the 10th Amendment. “It’s a federal power grab,” Denham said, reciting a long list of laws in other states which could be impacted.

Schrader, who has championed better livestock standards as a former practicing veterinarian, said the result will be to reduce all state protections to the lowest common denominator.

“What we’re declaring here,” he told the committee, “Is another state from outside…can basically decide to low ball you, to do all sort of practices that can harm your community economically, maybe public health wise and you have no recourse.”

Like most things in Congress, this was a fight driven by outside lobbies as much as the lawmakers.

In this light, Wednesday night was a proxy war between powerful pork and beef lobbies and the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), which enjoys deep pockets and become a major driver in promoting better standards for livestock.

Indeed, the 2008 California referendum was a landmark victory for HSUS, which has since compromised significantly to reach a pact with leading egg producers over a national standard for hen house rules. But the same pork and beef interests are blocking action in Congress because they don’t want to give the society a win and fear the precedent of Washington getting into this area of regulation.

“It’s a slippery slope. It’s the last thing you want to do,” said Randy Russell, a veteran of Ronald Reagan’s Agriculture Department and now a prominent Ag lobbyist who represents pork interests.

Yet the Iowa Poultry Association — in King’s home state — confirmed to POLITICO that it is on record in support of the legislation setting a national standard. HSUS President Wayne Pacelle said the fight is more “petulance by pork” at the expense of the egg industry.

Nonetheless, the lopsided margin of the final voting was striking.

Earlier in the evening, the committee’s Republican old guard had lost a 29-17 roll call in which the once new-wave organic food industry was granted the same rights as beef and pork to establish a check-off with the Agriculture Department to promote its products. California’s support was important in the vote, which was a coming-of-age for organic producers, now a $35 billion annual industry.

Livestock never had a prayer by comparison.

Denham first raised a point of order, arguing that the committee was exceeding its authority to get into interstate commerce issues. He was overruled. Denham then proposed to modify King’s amendment in an effort to exempt existing state laws. This failed too on a 33-13 vote.

Seeing the handwriting on the wall — and given the late hour — the King language was accepted on a voice vote.

One small footnote was olive oil. And looking back California didn’t make any new friends by out-muscling the New York delegation just minutes before in a fight over new inspection requirements for the olive oil industry.

The language is not in the Senate farm bill but was included in the House at the urging of prominent California growers looking for some leverage against imported products. The rationale is that the entire olive oil industry has been endangered by cases of false labeling and poor quality. But critics say the level of testing is excessive and only a thinly-veiled effort to slow-walk importers who account for most olive oil consumed in the U.S.

Caught in the middle is Sovena USA of Rome, N.Y. — a unit of the large Portugal olive oil company. Steve Mandia, Sovena USA’s chairman, told POLITICO that the Agriculture Department is not prepared to carry out the added inspections mandated in the House farm bill. The end result will be weeks of delay, he said, and added costs for importers like himself.

Rep. Chris Gibson (R-N.Y.) pleaded with the committee to review the language to make the inspections more workable but to no avail given California’s insistence on the provision.

“I have nothing against California, but the legislation is excessive and really impacts small importers,” Mandia told POLITICO. “It’s protectionist.”

When it was pointed out that Rep. Austin Scott (R-Ga.) also supported the inspections — on behalf of the fledgling olive industry in his own state — Mandia never took his eye off California.

“This is about California,” he said, reciting the names of big growers there who are pressuring for the inspections. “I spill more than Georgia grows.”