[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 82 (Friday, May 18, 2018)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E690-E691]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 AGRICULTURE AND NUTRITION ACT OF 2018

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                         HON. SUZANNE BONAMICI

                               of oregon

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, May 16, 2018

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the state of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2) to 
     provide for the reform and continuation of agricultural and 
     other programs of the Department of Agriculture through 
     fiscal year 2023, and for other purposes:

  Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2, the 
Agriculture and Nutrition Act, known as the Farm Bill. This bill 
weakens our ability to fight hunger, undermines conservation efforts, 
and fails to address the needs of small and family farms.
  The Farm Bill should provide a safety net for both the hard-working 
farmers who produce food and those who consume it. In the past, 
bipartisan Farm Bills have met the needs of both rural and urban 
communities and have found a balance in the policies that support 
farmers and those facing food insecurity. Unfortunately, this year 
Republican leaders on the House Agriculture Committee halted a 
bipartisan effort and brought a very partisan bill to the floor. The 
proposal is the result of an ideologically-driven process that was 
rushed and inadequate, leaving farm and food programs in jeopardy.
  More than 80 percent of the funding in the Farm Bill supports 
nutrition assistance programs for the nearly 41 million Americans 
facing food insecurity. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 
(SNAP) allows low-income families to purchase food, and the program 
continues to play a critical role in helping these families escape the 
devastating effects of poverty. This program is vital for families in 
Oregon and across the country. According to a Census Bureau report, 
nearly 20 percent of families in Oregon rely on SNAP. Unfortunately, 
the Agriculture and Nutrition Act would slash more than $23 billion in 
SNAP benefits, removing food from the tables of tens of thousands of 
hungry Oregonians, and an estimated one million households nationwide.
  Additionally, because SNAP is tied to eligibility for federal school 
meal programs, this bill would cut access to free school meals for an 
estimated 265,000 low-income children each year. This cruel and 
needless policy will result in additional hunger. Children need 
nutrition to learn and thrive and succeed in school, and hungry 
children are more likely to stay trapped in poverty.
  Under current law, able-bodied adults between the ages of 18 and 49, 
without dependents, are only eligible to receive SNAP benefits for 
three months every three years, unless they are employed or in training 
for at least 20 hours per week. This bill would expand these 
requirements, harming many older low-income Americans and ignoring the 
caregiving responsibilities and other barriers to employment that many 
people face. SNAP provides some of our most vulnerable populations with 
access to affordable food; it is not and should not be a workforce 
training program.
  The bill would also eliminate the ``Heat and Eat'' program, which 
allows Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) participants 
to receive a modest standard allowance so families do not need to 
choose between paying their energy bills and having access to food. 
These cuts would threaten many families, children, and seniors in 
Oregon and across the country.
  The Farm Bill should provide support for farmers and ranchers who are 
struggling to make ends meet because of low market prices for goods, 
high production costs, and significant market uncertainty. This is 
especially important in light of the trade disruptions and tariff tit-
for-tat initiated by the current Administration. Unfortunately, the 
Agriculture and Nutrition Act would fail to raise reference prices for 
most traditional crops to address the continued decline in farm income, 
limiting support for those who need it the most.
  Northwest Oregon is home to many organic and specialty crop farmers, 
and I am disappointed that this bill did not increase funding for 
Specialty Crop Research Initiative and Specialty Crop Block Grant 
Program, programs that help a wide variety of food producers such as 
blueberry and hazelnut farms,

[[Page E691]]

as well as vineyards producing world-renowned wines. The bill also 
neglected to increase funding for research into organic farming 
practices, an area that has demonstrated tremendous growth and that 
harbors further potential.
  Our state exports a large majority of its agricultural products. Even 
with market uncertainty as a result of inconsistent messages and a 
changing narrative from the Administration, this bill failed to 
increase funding for the Market Access Program, the Foreign Market 
Development Program, and the Emerging Markets Program. The bill also 
eliminates the Farmers Market and Local Food Promotion Program, which 
supports robust local production and purchasing.
  The bill also included troublesome language that would prohibit 
states from establishing standards and conditions on agricultural 
products sold within their borders. This could preempt several state 
laws in Oregon related to labeling malt beverages as beer, prohibiting 
the sale and possession of shark fins, and prohibiting retaliatory 
discrimination in farm worker camps. Oregonians should have the right 
to implement standards around labeling and animal welfare and avoid 
purchasing out of state products that fail to comply.
  Farmers are natural stewards of the land and have direct experience 
with conserving natural resources. The Farm Bill should support those 
efforts, but it eliminates the Conservation Stewardship Program, 
slashing $795 million in conservation funding. The bill would also 
remove a requirement that the Environmental Protection Agency consult 
with wildlife services to protect endangered species, fish, and 
wildlife from harmful pesticides. Further, it would reduce funding 
needed to maintain the integrity of the National Organic Program and 
eliminate existing bioenergy and renewable programs that support 
farmers, ranchers, and rural businesses.
  Finally, I am disappointed that my bipartisan amendment to legalize 
industrial hemp and define it as an agricultural commodity was not 
allowed to come to the floor for a vote. American farmers have been 
growing hemp since the country was founded, and hemp products account 
for more than $680 million in annual domestic sales. Thirty four states 
have legalized hemp production, and legalizing it at the federal level 
would bolster our economy and allow farmers and universities to 
continue researching and cultivating the crop. I will continue to work 
with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to advance federal 
policies that support the hemp industry.
  This bill fails to support hard-working farmers and takes away food 
assistance from the most vulnerable. We must do better for our 
constituents. I am unable to vote in favor of increasing hunger and 
harming local farmers, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

                          ____________________