EC from DC - June 21,2013

Unsubscribe|Forward to a Friend|Having trouble Viewing this Email?

I was pleased this week to welcome Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack to Kansas City to discuss comprehensive immigration reform. The Secretary and I wanted to speak to various organizations and agencies represented at the forum about the importance of this issue. We believe agreeing on a pathway to citizenship will not only help our agricultural communities, by allowing them to have the security and certainty of a dependable workforce, but will also create jobs throughout the country, and ensure a safe and stable supply of domestic food.

Secretary Vilsack told the crowd the pathway to citizenship would be filled with many requirements, as it should be. Those would include paying a penalty, paying back taxes, the absence of a serious criminal record, and learning to speak English, among other things. That path would be a long one, more than a decade, but one that would allow millions to come out of the shadows, work, pay taxes, and not live in fear of deportation.

I wanted to pass a Farm Bill.

I worked to pass a Farm Bill.

And I was willing to compromise to pass a Farm Bill.

Greatly compromise.

Having said that, I voted no this week on H.R. 1947, the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act – the Farm Bill.

The bill would have extended most major federal farm, nutrition assistance, rural development and agricultural trade programs for five years.

That all sounds very good. So why did I vote no?

It is a good question. And a question I want to make sure you know my answer to. As in all things important in life, the devil is in the details.

There were many things about this Farm Bill that I liked, worked to get included in the bill, and wanted to see pass. I was very pleased that the issue I fought for these last few months, retroactive livestock disaster assistance for farmers who were hit by the drought in 2012 was included. The expansion of the Farmers Market Promotion Program to fund regional food distribution centers to help farmers get their products to various local markets was included. These, and other parts, were very good and necessary.

There were also many things in the bill that I did not like. I have made no secret of the fact that I think the proposed $20.5 billion in cuts in the SNAP program was too much.

• 22 million of those getting assistance are children.
• 9 million are disabled and/or elderly.

Choosing to increase hunger in our country, our state, and literally in our own backyards, I felt, was unconscionable. Truly cruel.

Still, I was willing to move forward on a Yes vote until the very end. My hope was to keep the process moving forward. That would allow us to work with the Senate to reduce some of those cuts and reach an end point we could all live with.

But as the vote neared, there were additional ‘poison pills' put into the bill that made a Yes vote one I could not cast. The bad simply outweighed the good.

Partisan politics won again in Washington, with those wanting to create division winning over those working for compromise. Those wanting to vote ideologically – instead of logically.

In addition to cutting the more than $20 billion in SNAP, the bill would have also:

• Cut thousands of kids in Missouri's Fifth District from the free school breakfast and lunch program. How do we educate our kids when they are hungry?

For many children in my district, these are the only full meals they get each day. This is an issue in all parts of Missouri's Fifth District. For instance, Jackson County has about 13% of all households enrolled in the program. Saline County has 15%. This isn't an urban versus rural issue. This is about food. And it is about economic security. If farmers have a greatly reduced market for their product and their produce – their bottom line shrinks dramatically. People throughout the Fifth District of Missouri understand this quite clearly, but some in Washington can't seem to get it.

• One amendment – a last minute one – would have removed the dairy stabilization program. That would have left producers vulnerable to another price collapse, like the one we had in 2009.
• Another late amendment would have capped commodity payments at $250,000 a year for any one farm.
• It would have also restricted payments to people ‘actively' working on a farm. Farmers and ranchers know this would have hurt siblings and elderly parents who are not physically working – but on the farm providing other forms of support. This wasn't right.
• Yet another amendment would have tied work requirements to getting food assistance. The last time I checked we were still recovering from a recession where people who have played by the rules and worked hard their entire lives, are still spending their days searching for employment. How is taking food away from their children the moral answer?

I believe we need a truly bipartisan compromise to reform farm programs, provide certainty for America's farmers who are critical to our economy, expand access to healthy food with more organic options, fruits and vegetables, and more local farmers markets, and ensure that our most vulnerable, especially our children, do not go hungry.

If we are ever to move forward, and I will work endlessly to do so, we must work together. We cannot let last minute politics poison the future for our agriculture community, our children, and the economy of our country. This type of game-playing, partisan-bickering, last minute maneuvering must end.

Yes. I am angry. And I know you are too. The people of Missouri's Fifth District deserve better. The people throughout this great nation deserve better.

This is no game. We are creating uncertainty and instability in people's lives, in the future of their businesses, and in the safety and security of our country's food supply.

I am pleased to announce the opportunity for rural areas to get financial assistance for broadband deployment. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is now accepting applications in this effort to continue strengthening rural economies.

A dependable and quality infrastructure is crucial for rural areas to grow their economies, create and support jobs, and expand access to and knowledge about numerous services, including health services. We are seeing historic investment in rural America right now, and I want to make sure anyone in Missouri's Fifth District who is interested, knows about this.

Up to $21 million in grants is available through the Community Connect Grant program. It is a program targeting rural areas where service is not available. To date the program has funded 229 projects with USDA investments of $122 million. According to the USDA, in 2012, the department helped improve broadband service for close to 65,000 rural households, businesses and community organizations across the country.

For more information: /

A member of the House of Representatives went to the Attending Physician complaining of insufferable headaches. Thumbing through the Member's medical file, the doctor began her examination:

Doctor: Well, let's see if we can get rid of those nasty old headaches. You guys attend a lot of receptions; how much do you drink during the week?

Representative: I do attend many receptions during the course of a week, but unlike some of my wild colleagues, I honor and heed the warning from the Apostle Paul about not becoming drunk with wine. I'm a teetotaler.

Doctor: Do you smoke?

Representative: Doc, do I smell like I smoke? I can't stand to be around smokers.

Doctor: How much sleep do you get?

Representative: I'm on my knees praying by 9:30 p.m. and in bed by 10:00. I'm up at 6:00 a.m. sharp for meditation, in the gym by 8:00, and at my desk by 9:30 sharp.

Doctor: Well, I think I have figured out the source of your headaches. Let me get a nurse in here to loosen the band on your halo and you should get some relief immediately.

Self-righteousness and pomposity are dangers to Congress' functionality. The most powerful men and women who stroll these hallowed halls are those who are modest without being mousey, classy without being flashy, important without being impertinent and devout without being delusional.