Rep. Steve King is a small-government conservative, a tea-party darling who will enthusiastically tell you that Washington meddles too much in state and local affairs.
Until he disagrees with local voters and their elected representatives.
Then he's all for Washingon laying down the law.
King, R-Iowa, doesn't like a California law that sets standards for humane treatment of hens on egg-producing farms.
You may not be surprised to learn that there are 42 million hens in King's district - about 80 birds for every human - making it the Big Roost in the nation's top egg-producing state.
But this isn't a simple tale of a congressman sticking up for a local industry - at least not the industry in question. Contrary to King's stance, the the Iowa Poultry Association, the egg lobby in King's home state, has endorsed national standards for humane treatment based on California's law.
Legislation to set such standards is stalled in the Senate. In the House, meanwhile, King is working on behalf of beef and pork producers, who fear that they too could be yoked to humane treatment standards, to undermine California's law.
Five years ago, Golden State voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 2, which requires that cages on California farms be large enough for chickens to stand up, turn around and spread their wings. How much space is that? About as much as an 8?-by-11-inch sheet of paper.
The initiative takes effect in 2015, and so does a statute adopted by the Legislature to apply the same standard for any eggs sold in California.
King cried foul. He says states are free to set standards for their own farms, but those standards shouldn't apply to food produced in other states.
Iowa's egg farmers aren't the only ones asking for a national standard. Legislation modeled on Proposition 2 was endorsed by the United Egg Producers, an industry group representing the owners of 95 percent of the nation's egg-laying hens, and the Humane Society of the United States.
It was offered in the Senate by Democrat Dianne Feinstein of California. Despite industry support, Feinstein's amendment was left out of the Senate version of the Farm Bill, which was passed this week. King's amendment was inserted in the House version, which is expected to come to the floor in the coming weeks.
There's a lot to dislike about both versions of the Farm Bill. They're packed with susbsidies and sweetheart deals benefitting, among others, dairy farmers and sugar producers. They create a new crop insurance program that costs taxpayers too much money and creates perverse incentives to farm marginal land. They cut the food stamp program and generally favor Big Ag over small farmers.
The two bills will eventually land in a conference committee where there will be a chance to undo some of the worst provisions, including, we hope, King's effort to thwart the will of California voters.
California isn't the only state that stands to lose if King's amendment becomes law. Scores of state laws, including those protecting New Hampshire maple syrup and sweet Vidalia onions from Georgia, are at stake.
Congress should let the states - like hens on California farms - spread their wings, leaving King's amendment to line cages.
UPDATED: Please read and follow our commenting policy: