[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 89 (Thursday, June 20, 2013)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E943-E944]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       FEDERAL AGRICULTURE REFORM AND RISK MANAGEMENT ACT OF 2013

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                        HON. GERALD E. CONNOLLY

                              of virginia

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, June 18, 2013

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the state of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1947) to 
     provide for the reform and continuation of agricultural and 
     other programs of the Department of Agriculture through 
     fiscal year 2018, and for other purposes:

  Mr. CONNOLLY. Madam Chair, as we finish debate on the House farm 
bill, I can't help but remember when as a young fifteen-year-old I was 
riveted as America debated these very same issues but with oh such a 
different outcome. I remember the Senate field hearings in 1967 where 
our elected leaders highlighted the need for government to protect our 
most vulnerable. There were those in Congress then who would have had 
us believe there was nothing we could do. But fortunately Robert 
Kennedy's trip to the Mississippi Delta changed America forever.
  As a country, Kennedy helped us to see poverty firsthand. Innocent 
children with distended stomachs, who hadn't eaten in days. Their 
mothers unsure where their next meal would come from. It raised our 
awareness of and concern for our fellow citizens.
  Yet here we are more than 40 years later, and once again we are being 
presented with those same false choices. The House majority would have 
you believe we have no choice but to make draconian cuts to the 
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (or SNAP), a program that we 
know has worked in reducing significantly malnutrition in America.
  SNAP has been a critical safety net for millions of families who need 
help putting food on the table. Nearly half of the 46 million low-
income participants are children, and a significant portion of adult 
participants are employed but simply do not earn enough to support 
their family.
  SNAP provides more than $1.2 billion in benefits a month to more than 
786,000 Virginians. In my district, more than 6,000 households receive 
SNAP benefits. Sixty percent of those families have children under the 
age of 18. One-third of these families live below the poverty line 
despite the fact that 45% have one family member working and 42% have 
at least two family members working.
  Simply put, SNAP prevents hunger in the wealthiest nation on earth. 
Sadly, the House majority's bill will cut SNAP by $21 billion, forcing 
more than 2 million people off this program and causing more than 
210,000 children to lose eligibility for free or reduced school meals.
  Beyond the human face of hunger, a tragic irony is lost within this 
policy debate. The very people who routinely call on this body to limit 
government and rein in spending are today asking for government 
handouts in the form of crop subsidies and insurance payments.
  They want the American taxpayer to cover their risks while telling 
those at risk of hunger that they are on their own. A bold faced 
Darwinian philosophy except, of course, when it involves them.

[[Page E944]]

  To allay this apparent conflict of ideology, if not seemingly obvious 
conflict of interest, I had a simple amendment that would have 
prohibited Members of Congress or their spouses from benefiting from 
the provisions of this bill. As if only to confirm my already strong 
reservations with this legislation, House Republicans wouldn't even 
allow for debate of this common-sense proposal to restore program 
integrity and public confidence.
  The American people would be forgiven for smelling the stench of 
hypocrisy in the halls of Congress.
  So I now ask, who are the takers? Poor babies and their mothers 
trying to put food on the table? Or those who pocket tens of thousands 
of dollars in crop subsidies and insurance payments and tax credits and 
accelerated equipment depreciation and federally funded soil and crop R 
and D then have the gall to vote to cut nutrition benefits with a 
straight face? For all these reasons, I cannot support this reckless 
philosophy of legislating that endangers the very people we should be 
looking after.

                          ____________________