Rep. Chris Gibson, R-Kinderhook, should not have voted in favor of the House version of the farm bill this summer, given the last-minute inclusion of the extremely controversial "King amendment."
The amendment, added at the last minute and named for its author Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, contains one of the most serious threats to animal protection laws in U.S. history, and negatively impacts organic farmers. It proposes to create a federal pre-emption of state anti-cruelty laws and laws that affect farm workers.
As a professor of animal law, I am certain this backward amendment ignores the fact that public support for anti-cruelty legislation is overwhelming, and the majority of Congressman Gibson's constituents would be most let down by his apparent support of the "King amendment."
While Congressman Gibson can't undo his vote, he now has another chance to work to remove King's language before the national farm bill is finalized into law. Congress must stand for states' rights to determine environmental, food safety and animal protection issues (afforded by the 10th Amendment). These laws were enacted by the individual states for a reason, and the "King amendment" must be stricken from the books, once and for all.
Valerie Lang Waldin, J.D.
Sand Lake