40% of House opposes repeal of California pork restrictions.

A Bipartisan Effort​ to Oppose Restrictive Farm Bill Provision

A large contingent of Democrats⁣ and⁤ a handful of Republicans have​ united ‍against ​a provision‍ in the Farm Bill that aims to block California’s pork production restrictions. This move has⁣ sparked​ a heated ‌debate among lawmakers.

Strong Opposition to the Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression Act

In a letter addressed to House Agriculture Committee Chairman Glenn “GT” Thompson (R-PA) and ranking member David Scott (D-GA), lawmakers expressed their strong opposition to the ⁢Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression Act (EATS Act). This act seeks ​to combat laws like California’s⁢ Proposition 12, which imposes stringent restrictions on pork producers.

“The EATS Act could harm America’s ‍small farmers, threaten numerous state laws, and infringe on the fundamental rights of states ​to establish​ laws and regulations within their ‍own borders,”

The letter, led by Representatives ⁢Earl ​Blumenauer (D-OR) and Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA), highlights⁣ the potential ​negative consequences of the EATS ‌Act. Joining Fitzpatrick in signing ‍the letter are four fellow Republicans, including Representatives Mike Lawler (R-NY), Mike⁣ Garcia (R-CA), Chris Smith (R-NJ), and Lori Chavez-DeRemer (R-OR). On the Democratic side, notable signatories include members of the far-left ‘Squad’ such ‍as ‌Representatives Rashida Tlaib ⁢(D-MI),​ Cori Bush (D-MO), Ilhan⁢ Omar (D-MN), Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), Jamaal Bowman (D-NY), Greg Casar (D-TX), and Summer Lee (D-PA).

Proposition ‌12 and its Impact on Pork Producers

Proposition 12, ⁢a‍ California law, mandates that⁣ all pork producers in America who wish to sell their products​ in California must provide ‌24 ⁣square feet of‌ space per sow. This⁤ requirement adds an estimated $3,500 in cost-per-sow to comply. The law also includes‍ provisions⁤ for ‍egg ⁣and⁣ veal ‍production.

The ⁤EATS Act,​ introduced‌ by Senator Roger Marshall (R-KS) and Representative Ashley Hinson (R-IA), invokes the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. ⁤Its aim is to prevent states like California from regulating producers in other states, thereby protecting the market of those ⁣producers.

“California has opened the ⁣door to punish farmers and ranchers for how ⁢they‌ tend their livestock ⁤and take care of the land. Make no mistake: The EATS Act would protect the existence of family farms across the country soon to be under ⁣assault by Proposition 12 and ensure California’s law applies only in California,” said Marshall.

Opposition’s Argument ⁢and Support

The group of 171 House⁤ members opposing the provision argues⁤ that producers ​can simply choose not to sell their ⁤products in California, ⁤thereby avoiding the need to comply​ with the state’s⁤ law. This argument aligns with the Supreme Court’s ruling in May, where Justice Neil Gorsuch stated that “companies that choose‍ to sell products in various‍ States must normally ​comply with the laws of those ⁤various States.”

Opponents⁤ of Proposition 12 also argue that it has an “extraterritorial” effect on pork producers from⁣ states that do not enforce such expensive requirements. Additionally, agricultural trade organizations, including ⁢those in the beef industry, oppose the California measure due to its potential implications for cattle production.

Proponents of​ the opposition, such as the ⁢Organization for Competitive Markets, have applauded the letter and highlighted the bipartisan support it received. They believe that the EATS Act undermines independent family ‍farmers, states’ rights,​ and the Constitution.

“We applaud the more than 150 bipartisan Members of the People’s House for standing firmly against the terrible EATS assault​ on independent family‍ farmers, states’ ‌rights, and the Constitution,”‌ said OCM Action President Marty Irby.

As the debate continues, the future of the Farm Bill provision remains uncertain.

Click here to read more from the ⁤Washington ⁢Examiner.