In the News

Congressman Gerry Connolly said he voted against the Farm Bill on the House floor Thursday, noting “The American people would be forgiven for smelling the stench of hypocrisy in the halls of Congress.”

Citing massive cuts in food and nutrition programs contained in the bill and House Republicans’ refusal to consider his simple amendment to prohibit members of Congress or their spouses from benefiting personally from provisions of the bill, Connolly (D-VA) said, “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.”

Connolly said many of the bill’s supporters faced a conflict of ideology, if not an obvious conflict of interest.  “They want the American taxpayer to cover their risks, while telling those at risk of hunger that they are on their own.  It is a bold-faced Darwinian philosophy except, of course, when it involves them,” he said.

“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&D, and then have the gall to vote with a straight face to cut nutrition programs,” Connolly asked.

# # #

Connolly’s full statement follows:

Connolly Statement on House Farm Bill

June 20, 2013

Mr. Speaker,

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.

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, and then have the gall to vote with a straight face to cut nutrition benefits? For all these reasons, I cannot support this reckless philosophy of legislating that endangers the very people we should be looking after.

###