[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 3094-3096]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        AGRICULTURAL ACT OF 2014

  Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I wish to discuss the Agricultural Act of 
2014, otherwise known as the farm bill.
  I sincerely appreciate the Agriculture Committee chairwoman's and 
ranking member's work in moving the process forward.
  I have made it a priority to keep Pennsylvania's agricultural 
industry and our rural economies strong to support Pennsylvanian 
families.

[[Page 3095]]

  Agriculture is the Commonwealth's largest industry. Pennsylvania's 
farm gate value--that is cash receipts to growers--is about $5.8 
billion. Agribusiness in Pennsylvania is a $46.4 billion industry. 
Seventeen and one-half percent of Pennsylvanians are employed in the 
food and fiber system. What does this mean?
  It means that we must have a five-year farm bill.
  The farm bill creates economic opportunities in our rural areas and 
sustains the consumers and businesses that rely on our rural economy.
  This farm bill would reduce the deficit by approximately $23 billion 
through the elimination of some subsidies, the consolidation of 
programs and producing greater efficiencies in program delivery.
  Furthermore, dairy farmers deserve the best dairy program possible. 
The Senate bill contains many improvements that I support. Dairy is 
Pennsylvania's No. 1 agricultural sector. The dairy industry annually 
generates more than $1.8 billion in on-farm cash receipts, which 
represent about 32 percent of Pennsylvania's total agricultural 
receipts.
  There are so many other important items that come out of having a 
five-year farm bill.
  I am especially thankful to the chairwoman and ranking member for 
inclusion of a provision to establish cooperative lending pilot 
projects to aid administration of microloans. These projects will help 
provide business planning support and financial management expertise to 
farmers to ensure their success in order to foster economic development 
in agriculture and sustain farm profitability.
  Making risk management and crop insurance products work better for 
Pennsylvanians, especially small farmers, specialty crop farmers and 
organic farmers, is very important. Providing funding through risk 
management, conservation and agricultural marketing agencies to 
underserved states, the Agricultural Management Assistance, AMA, 
program helps to make the farm bill more equitable among regions. I 
genuinely appreciate the chairwoman's and ranking member's work to 
enhance the Agricultural Management Assistance program, including 
support for organic transition assistance. The improvements in this 
bill to crop insurance delivery are important.
  We have worked to address the unique concerns of specialty crop 
farmers and beginning farmers, and we have done so in a bipartisan way. 
Specialty crops are very important to Pennsylvanian agriculture. The 
Specialty Crops Research Initiative, SCRI, Specialty Crops Block Grant 
program and Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Snack Program all advance the 
specialty crops industry, playing a key role in ensuring that this 
important agricultural sector receives continued acknowledgement in the 
farm bill. These programs remain strong under this bill.
  In addition, the Nation's organic industry has grown exponentially 
from $3.6 billion in 1997 to $29 billion in 2010, with an annual growth 
rate of 19 percent from 1997-2008. In 2008, Pennsylvania was ranked 6th 
in number of organic farms with 586 and 3rd in sales at $212.7 million.
  I also support the improvements in promotion programs within the farm 
bill.
  Through research, we develop more efficient and effective farming 
methods. Research also helps producers maintain a competitive edge in 
the global market by fighting threatening diseases and pests.
  I am pleased that the farm bill invests in relevant and targeted 
research and maintains the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 
programs that work to eradicate the invasive species that threaten our 
nation's forests and farms.
  The farm bill's forestry programs are essential for assisting forest 
landowners in managing threats and enhancing stewardship. I am pleased 
that the farm bill continues important forestry programs so that forest 
owners can continue to create new economic opportunities. I am also 
grateful to the chairwoman and ranking member for working with me to 
fix USDA's Biopreferred program to even the playing field for 
Pennsylvanian forestry products. Revenues from Pennsylvania's forest 
products industry exceed $5.5 billion annually. Over 10 percent of the 
State's manufacturing workforce is involved in the forest products 
industry.
  I am appreciative to the committee for the inclusion of my provision 
directing USDA to work with the Food and Drug Administration toward the 
development of a standard of identity for honey, a tool which will 
promote honesty and fair dealing and serve the interest of consumers 
and Pennsylvania's honey industry. The majority of our honey is 
imported, but because there is no standard, contaminated, low-quality 
honey continues to pass through customs and undercut our domestic 
product. Pennsylvania is a major player in the honey industry. Honey 
bee pollination can be directly attributed to the production of about 
$60 million of agricultural produce in Pennsylvania annually.
  I am committed to keeping Pennsylvania's rural communities strong and 
support rural development programs that provide access to capital for 
rural businesses to provide economic opportunities and create jobs. A 
rural community's viability in attracting and keeping businesses is 
often directly related to the condition of its infrastructure and 
facilities. USDA's Rural Development programs empower rural 
communities, transform local economies and preserve the quality of life 
in small towns across the Commonwealth. A rural economic development 
program that saves and creates jobs in rural economies and improves 
rural life is extremely important for Pennsylvanian families.
  Farmers are the original stewards of the land and continue to lead 
the charge in protecting our natural resources. I believe the voluntary 
conservation programs in the farm bill provide important tools to help 
farmers comply with Federal and State regulations while keeping farmers 
in business. I am committed to making conservation programs more 
efficient, effective and relevant to farmers.
  Conservation programs are an extremely important resource for many 
Pennsylvanian farmers. I worked with my Senate colleagues to support 
enhancements to conservation programs through this process in an effort 
to ensure that these remodeled programs would better serve the needs of 
Pennsylvanians.
  Pennsylvania's watersheds contribute more than half of the fresh 
water flowing to the Chesapeake Bay. While Pennsylvania does not border 
the bay, activities in the Commonwealth profoundly affect the bay's 
health. The bay's tributaries, such as Susquehanna and Potomac Rivers, 
are important to the region's economy, culture and outdoor recreation.
  Under the 2008 farm bill, the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Initiative, 
CBWI, provided essential support to farmers facing Federal and State 
regulations concerning water quality and helped to meet demand for 
conservation programs. In advance of the Agriculture Committee's 
consideration of the 2012 farm bill, I introduced the Chesapeake Bay 
Watershed Fairness Act, which among other things reauthorized the CBWI, 
because I know Pennsylvania farmers used this program very well.
  I am grateful that the 2014 farm bill contains portions of this 
legislation which are aimed at equipping farmers with the tools 
necessary to better meet water quality goals. To reduce the number of 
conservation programs, the farm bill consolidates four different 
programs into one that will provide competitive funds to regional 
partnerships and will also provide conservation funding directly to 
producers. CBWI was one of the programs that got folded into this new 
program.
  I worked very closely with other Senators from the watershed to 
strengthen the conservation title to better benefit our region. 
Together we secured significant policy improvements. The current bill 
focuses on the most critical conservation areas and will help farmers 
in the Chesapeake Bay watershed participate in conservation programs so 
that they can help the region meet water quality standards.
  Pennsylvania's agricultural producers and forest land owners use the

[[Page 3096]]

Environmental Quality Incentives Program, EQIP, to implement 
conservation practices, which might otherwise be cost prohibitive, to 
protect valuable natural resources.
  Further, the Farmland Protection Program, FPP, protects prime 
farmland from development. FPP is rolled into a new Agriculture Lands 
Easement, ALE, Program to help keep working lands preserved as farm 
land. I support USDA in its efforts to craft the rules of this program 
to allow flexibility so that States are allowed to use their own 
easement terms and conditions as long as they are consistent with the 
program purposes, in order to certify successful entities like the 
Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture's Bureau of Farmland Protection 
and improve the efficiency of this program.
  While I do not mention all of the farm bill conservation programs, I 
do believe that each serves an important purpose.
  My constituents, and all Americans, deserve some certainty and having 
a farm bill will put us in that direction. A comprehensive farm bill is 
something that I fought for years to enact and I certainly support the 
goal of a comprehensive Farm bill to provide long-term certainty for 
our farmers.
  Chairwoman Stabenow deserves a lot of credit for her tireless work to 
get this bill across the goal line. She managed the very difficult task 
of negotiating a bill that advanced without some of the most egregious 
and draconian proposals, including $39 billion in Supplemental 
Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP, cuts that the House had passed.
  However, this farm bill contains cuts to SNAP that will be 
devastating for many of my constituents. There are 1.7 million SNAP 
recipients in Pennsylvania. I support changes in SNAP to increase 
accountability like stopping lottery winners from continuing to receive 
assistance and cracking down on retailers and recipients engaged in 
benefit trafficking.
  But this farm bill will adversely impact many children, seniors, 
people with disabilities and working families in Pennsylvania.
  According to the Greater Philadelphia Coalition Against Hunger, the 
SNAP cut in this farm bill will cause 175,000 Pennsylvanian households 
to lose, on average, $65 for food each month. These same households 
already saw a cut to their monthly benefits just 3 months ago when the 
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, ARRA, increase in benefits 
expired.
  My guest for the 2014 State of the Union was Tianna Gaines-Turner, a 
Philadelphia woman who knows all too well the challenges working 
families face. Tianna lost her job in December and is the mother of a 
nine-year-old and twin six-year-olds. Her husband works in a minimum 
wage job. Tianna participates in a research and advocacy project 
founded by the Center for Hunger-Free Communities at Drexel University: 
``Witnesses to Hunger.''
  In 2008, Dr. Mariana Chilton provided cameras to 42 single mothers in 
Philadelphia, simply asking that they use them to take pictures to tell 
us about their lives and their children. These Witnesses to Hunger, 
seeing the opportunity to spread awareness and create change, accepted 
Dr. Chilton's challenge and started documenting the poverty and hunger 
that they face on a daily basis. Living it each day, these remarkable 
mothers understand the trials of hunger and raising a family more than 
anyone else. The Witnesses to Hunger inspire me and challenge me to do 
more in the Senate. I am incredibly grateful for the guidance they 
provide.
  Tianna wrote me a letter that said:

       Our voices and pictures show our pain, struggles. When 
     you're voting, close your eyes and think of the picture of my 
     children. Their hunger pains rest in your hands.

  Another Witness to Hunger, Angela Sutton's son Jahzaire wrote me a 
letter that said:

       I was told that you were cutting food stamps and I want to 
     know why? I need food stamps so I can eat to be big and 
     strong. So I can become Senator one day.

  Every child deserves adequate food so that the light inside them can 
continue to burn brightly. It is an impossible situation to raise a 
family and have to make the choice between heating a home or putting 
food on the table. Recent research from Children's HealthWatch 
demonstrated that improved SNAP benefit levels also have a positive 
impact on children's health. Children in families receiving SNAP were 
significantly more likely to be classified as ``well'' than were young 
children whose families were eligible but did not receive SNAP.
  Hunger and food insecurity is an unfortunate and preventable reality 
for many Pennsylvanians. Hunger affects working families, children, and 
older Americans across the Nation and not one community across this 
country is Hunger Free. Nearly half of all SNAP participants are 
children and 76 percent of families receiving SNAP have at least one 
employed member. Cutting SNAP is not a way to address the deficit.
  Moody's Analytics estimates that in a weak economy, every $1 increase 
in SNAP benefits generates $1.72 in economic activity. In fact, 
economic importance is demonstrated in part by Walmart, which on 
January 31, 2014 put out updated expectations for its fourth quarter. 
Its report stated:

       Despite a holiday season that delivered positive comps, two 
     factors contributed to lower comp sales performance for the 
     14-week period for Walmart U.S. First, the sales impact from 
     the reduction in SNAP (the U.S. government Supplemental 
     Nutrition Assistance Program) benefits that went into effect 
     Nov. 1 is greater than we expected . . .

  CBO rated an increase in SNAP benefits as one of the two most cost-
effective of all spending and tax options it examined for boosting 
growth and jobs in a weak economy.
  About 94.6 percent of Federal spending goes directly for food; 
administrative costs are low. SNAP's error rates stand at record lows; 
fewer than 2 percent of SNAP benefits are issued to households that do 
not meet all of the program's eligibility requirements.
  I am thankful that The Emergency Food Assistance Program will receive 
increased funding under this bill, but there is no way for our already-
strained food banks to make up for the increased demand they will see 
due to the SNAP cuts in Pennsylvania.
  Therefore, I could not in good conscience vote for this bill.
  I want this Senate to think about the children of the Witnesses to 
Hunger and all others who face hunger in this Nation--and what more we 
can do to help them succeed in the face of low wages, unemployment or 
underemployment.

                          ____________________