[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 68 (Thursday, April 26, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H3577-H3578]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      REAUTHORIZING THE FARM BILL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, last week, the House Agriculture 
Committee passed a bill out that would reauthorize the farm bill. This 
is the most important bill that most Americans don't pay that much 
attention to. Sadly, I don't think it gets the attention that it needs 
here in Congress.
  This is just the beginning of a long process to deal with the bill 
that is going to be the most important health bill that this Congress 
will consider, because it would have us continue to subsidize a diet 
that literally makes Americans sick. It is the most important 
environmental bill, in terms of carbon emissions and water quality, and 
it makes a big difference for the men and women who are in the 
agriculture sector.
  There are long-term challenges that we face, such as beginning 
farmers and ranchers and what happens in terms of transition. The 
average farmer is 58.2 years of age. What are we going to do to provide 
the workforce for the future, to transition lands, to be able to get 
the most out of the investment in the lands?
  The bill that is awaiting House action--and I hope it awaits House 
action a long time, because there are many things we can do to make it 
better--would cut environmental funding, even though only one out of 
four applications for environmental programs ever get funded. The 
environmental programs are not performance-based to make sure that we 
get the most benefit for those dollars.
  The bill does not rein in unnecessary subsidies. Indeed, it broadens 
loopholes and coverage to have subsidies go to more people who are only 
tangentially related to operating the farm and people who don't 
necessarily need it.
  But the thing that I find most troubling is the provision known as 
the King amendment. This provision in the farm bill would prohibit 
State and local governments from being able to set their own 
protections for agriculture, food, and the environment.
  Every State has agriculture and fishing industries that have their 
own special needs: pests, disease, and protections for consumers. The 
interest of various industries are widely different across the country. 
The needs of the fisheries of the Great Lakes are different from those 
of the Gulf Coast, New England, and the Pacific Northwest.
  The King amendment would prevent States from being able to tailor 
protections to their own industry and their own consumers. I strongly 
urge my colleagues to investigate what this provision would mean.
  There is a great study from the Harvard Law School about an analysis 
of H.R. 4879 and the King amendment preempting State laws, for 
instance, on sell-by or best-used dates for shellfish, meat, dairy, and 
eggs. It would prevent States from stopping the import of pests that 
kill fruit, nut, and lumber trees. It would allow fishing vessels to 
fish waters of the various States without complying with the rules of 
those States, if their States have different provisions. It would even 
prohibit pet distributor licenses from being denied animal abusers.
  These are the sorts of things that, when the public looks at it, they 
are shaking their heads in wonder. Why would Congress have a race to 
the bottom for protections for the environment, consumers, and animal 
protections?
  It is interesting. There was a provision voted on by people in 
Oklahoma in the fall of 2016. The so-called ``freedom to farm'' has 
many of these same provisions. When the voters in Oklahoma did a deep 
dive, they rejected the Farm Bureau's initiative by a 60-40 margin. 
That is the State that gave Donald Trump his largest margin of victory 
for any State, other than West Virginia.
  I hope Congress does what the people of Oklahoma did: look at the 
details, understand what it would do, and reject unnecessary 
restrictions on the ability of your State and local government to 
tailor protections for the people who fish, farm, and shop.
  We can do better. I hope that we are going to be able to enlist the 
support of the vast majority of Congress to take a moment, pause, and 
look at a farm bill that is worthy of this body.

[[Page H3578]]

  

                          ____________________