[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 19 (Friday, January 31, 2014)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E149-E150]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2642, FEDERAL AGRICULTURE REFORM AND RISK 
                         MANAGEMENT ACT OF 2014

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                             HON. RUSH HOLT

                             of new jersey

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, January 29, 2014

  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, today, the House will consider the Agriculture 
Act of 2014. While I appreciate the work that has gone into the 
crafting of this legislation, and the delicate compromise that this 
bill represents, I will not support the bill before us today because I 
refuse to support a bill that will increase hunger in America.
  Throughout this process I have stood fast with many of my Democratic 
colleagues in strong opposition to attempts by the House majority to 
bleed as much money as possible from the Supplemental Nutrition 
Assistance Program (SNAP). The first draft of the House farm bill, 
which failed, would have cut $20 billion from SNAP. In the next 
iteration of the legislation, the Republican response was to simply 
remove SNAP from the House bill and pass it without a single Democratic 
vote. When a Republican stand-alone nutrition bill finally came up it 
was no surprise that the bill proposed a cut of $40 billion to SNAP.
  The bill before us today would cut $8.6 billion from SNAP. 
Significantly less than the House Republican proposal, but still more 
than twice what was proposed in the Senate farm bill initially. Rather 
than working with Democrats to craft a real strategy to address hunger 
in America, my Republican colleagues are insistent on stripping funds 
from this country's most comprehensive and successful anti-hunger 
program.
  According to the most recent USDA data, about 47 million people 
benefit from SNAP nationally. Last year, on average, 876,266 people in 
New Jersey participated monthly in SNAP. In New Jersey's 12th 
Congressional District more than 40 percent of households receiving 
SNAP have children under 18 and more than 40 percent have at least one 
person over 60.
  Since November 1, 2013, these families have been dealing with cuts to 
SNAP benefits because of an expiring provision of the American Recovery 
and Reinvestment Act that had

[[Page E150]]

provided for a benefit increase. The SNAP cuts we are debating today 
come from ending a policy called ``Heat and Eat.'' New Jersey is one of 
17 states that choose to participate in ``heat and eat'' which can help 
states improve access to SNAP while reducing administrative burdens by 
allowing states to link a beneficiary's receipt of low-income heating 
assistance to their SNAP benefit. What this means is that New Jersey's 
SNAP beneficiaries will be among those principally affected by the 
changes to SNAP that are proposed in this farm bill.
  As a country we must end our obsession with debt and deficits, 
especially when these reductions are coming at the expense of the less 
fortunate and the hungry. This legislation continues to favor the 
largest farmers and agri-business over family farms. The bill achieves 
significant savings by ending direct commodity payments, but then 
redirects these savings to fund new subsidized programs to pay the same 
farmers when crop prices or revenues fall below certain levels--
continuing wasteful programs that benefit the largest farms and agri-
businesses. We should be doing more to find greater savings by 
strengthening caps on commodity support programs and federal crop 
insurance subsidies that, under this bill, continue to enable some of 
the largest farms and agri-businesses to receive millions of taxpayer 
dollars year after year. While the bill moves us towards an 
agricultural safety net based primarily on crop insurance, we fail to 
make any real reforms to the crop insurance system. Agri-business is 
still heavily subsidized while the federal government guarantees very 
favorable profit margins for insurance companies while continuing to 
pick up the tab for all administrative and operating costs.
  While some policy improvements are made for conservation, funding for 
these programs is still cut by about $6 billion dollars as acreage in 
the Conservation Reserve Program is reduced steadily over the next 5 
years. Additionally, the lack of reform to the U.S. sugar program 
threatens manufacturing jobs in New Jersey and around the U.S. This 
program cost taxpayers almost $300 million last year alone, and will 
continue to create artificially high prices for consumers on the foods 
we enjoy every day. New Jersey farmers deserve a better farm bill. If 
we made real reforms to crop insurance and commodity support programs 
we could invest further in conservation, specialty crops, organic 
agriculture, small and beginning farmers, and of course, nutrition.
  Following passage of the House farm bill I urged my colleagues in 
Leadership and in the Agriculture Committee to work towards a 
compromise that would eliminate the SNAP cuts and allow for the passage 
of a farm bill that supports agriculture without hurting hungry 
families. The Agriculture Act of 2014 is a success in many ways. The 
bill ends direct commodity payments to farmers, includes conservation 
compliance for crop insurance, and invests in specialty crops, organic 
foods, and sustainable agriculture. Unfortunately, the bill fails to 
complement these policies with a similar investment in the people who 
could use it most, the children, seniors and veterans who rely on SNAP 
for one of the most basic of needs--something to eat.

                          ____________________