AGRICULTURAL ACT OF 2014

The Agricultural Act of 2014 (H.R. 2642) was signed into law on February 7, 2014 by President Barack Obama. The bill passed in the House
of Representatives by a vote of 251-166, with 72% of Republicans and 87% of Democrats supporting the bill. In the Senate, it was passed
by a vote of 68-32, with 49% of Republicans and 83% of Democrats supporting the bill.
The Agricultural Act of 2014 contains over $956 Billion dollars in spending from 2014-2023. This massive allotment of money gets
dispersed among several different programs, which are listed below in order of their size.
Food Stamps and Nutrition ($756 Billion)
Food Stamps make up the largest portion of the so-called "Farm Bill" with over 80% of spending. Food Stamps, more formerly known as the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, are a government program aimed at helping low-income families receive financial assistance
to purchase food. The Agricultural Act of 2014 made $8 Billion in cuts to Food Stamps over the next 10 years by ending loopholes,
changing eligibility requirements, and creating new programs for those without jobs (Plumer par. 6). This is the most controversial part of
the Farm Bill because many Democrats and Republicans disagree on how this money should be spent. Food Stamps have long caused a
divide in Congress, mainly because Republicans need Democratic support in order to ensure subsidizes to farmers.
Crop Insurance ($90 Billion)
According to Wikipedia, "crop insurance is purchased by agricultural producers, including farmers, ranchers, and others to protect
themselves against either the loss of their crops due to natural disasters, such as hail, drought, and floods, or the loss of revenue due to
declines in the prices of agricultural commodities" ("Crop Insurance" par. 1). It is set up similar to other types of insurance that you may buy,
for example healthcare insurance. Crop insurance, however, is backed by the federal government and implemented through independent
insurance agencies and administered by the Risk Management Agency (Plumer par. 7). Crop Insurance is different from common types of
insurance you may buy because a portion of the premium is guaranteed by the federal government. The government will pay a certain
percentage of the farmers premium to supplement their income in times of need ("Crop Insurance" par. 5). This portion of the bill makes up
9% of the spending over the next 10 years. Crop insurance under the Agricultural Act of 2014 was increased by $7 Billion after
the elimination of direct payments, which previously paid farmers regardless of whether they farmed their land (Plumer par. 17). Overall,
crop insurance is intended to benefit farmers directly, just as car insurance may benefit you if you were to get into a fender bender.
Conservation ($56 Billion)
This portion of the bill makes up 6% of total spending and is $4 Billion less than the 2013 bill. Conservation money is used to help protect
farmers against natural processes, such as soil erosion. Conservation also provides incentives to farmers for using certain farming
techniques, such as drip irrigation. This portion of the bill creates programs aimed at helping farmers grow crops in a smarter and more
economical way that helps them learn new farming techniques. Under the previous Farm Bill there were 23 conservation programs, but
under the current law there are only 13 conservation programs (Plumer par. 19).
Commodity Programs ($44 Billion)
According to Plumer, "this section includes a variety of programs to shield farmers against sharp fluctuations in prices, particularly corn,
wheat, soybean, cotton, rice, peanut, and dairy producers" (Plumer par. 13). Commodity programs equate to 5% of the total spending, but
have an enormous impact on farmers. Under the current Farm Bill, farmers are no longer guaranteed a minimum price and instead must
rely on crop insurance to offset fluctuating costs. This portion of the bill has angered farmers the most because of the elimination of direct
payments and price floors. Because farmers suffer a fluctuating income, commodity programs are designed to alleviate some of that
burden and guarantee a base price (Plumer par. 15). The Agricultural Act of 2014, however, has eliminated several of the safety nets that
farmers used to have.
Other ($8 Billion)
This section of the bill makes up less than 1% of total spending and is comprised of several different programs. Energy programs, research
and development, and trade all make up this portion. Many of these programs are aimed at helping promote U.S. agriculture and provide
money to invest in the future of agriculture (Plumer par. 24).

This is the link to the full text of H.R. 2642:

http://agriculture.house.gov/sites/republicans.agriculture.house.gov/files/pdf/legislation/Final_AgAct2014.pdf
(http://agriculture.house.gov/sites/republicans.agriculture.house.gov/files/pdf/legislation/Final_AgAct2014.pdf)
This is the link to the bill summary:
http://agriculture.house.gov/sites/republicans.agriculture.house.gov/files/pdf/legislation/AgriculturalActSummary.pdf
(http://agriculture.house.gov/sites/republicans.agriculture.house.gov/files/pdf/legislation/AgriculturalActSummary.pdf)

Plumer, Brad. "The $956 Billion Farm Bill, In One Graph." The Washington Post. 28 January 2014. Web. 22 September 2014.

WHY BIPARTISAN SUPPORT?

Republicans are often elected to serve rural areas of America, therefore they are generally in control of the House of Representatives,
which is based on population. Democrats often live in urban areas, leaving rural areas sparsely populated and used as farm land. The
concentration of Democrats in cities prevent them from having any real influence in rural areas, leading to the election of Republican
representatives. Due to Republicans representing rural areas, they often support bills aimed at helping agriculture. Originally, Republicans
supported the Farm Bill because it provided "necessary" relief to farmers who lived in their district. Recently, however, a number of
Republicans have decided not to support Farm Bill's because they do not believe agricultural subsidies are doing enough to help farmers.
They instead believe the Farm Bill's are shifting their focus from agriculture to food stamps. This has angered many Republicans, who do
not believe the government should be providing so many food stamps to Americans ("In Senate, Bipartisan Support" ). Overall, Republicans
still support the Farm Bill because they want to help farmers in their district.
Democrats are often elected to serve urban areas, therefore they are generally in control of the Senate, which is based on equal
representation. This is true because Democrats are often concentrated in cities, which have a larger population than rural areas. High
population levels in cities make them more influential in state-wide elections because they have a larger number of voters. Due to this fact,
the Senate is often controlled by Democrats. Southern Democrats support the Farm Bill for the same reason as Republicans, while urban
Democrats do not. Most Democrats originally did not support the Farm Bill because it did not benefit their constituents, but have recently
shifted their opinion because of the rise in food stamp payouts. Democrats now more than ever, support the Farm Bill because of the
increased allocation for food stamps ("In Senate, Bipartisan Support"). This goes along with Democrat ideologically because they believe in
the redistribution of wealth and believe in helping the poor through entitlement programs.

NORTH CAROLINA REPRESENTATIVES VOTING ON H.R. 2642

Below are a few of the statements released by North Carolina Representatives after voting on the Agricultural Act of 2014, often referred
to as the "Farm Bill." I chose to highlight the comments of Congress members who represent areas in and around the Charlotte area. Each
Representative listed below serves in the United States Congress, either in the House of Representatives or Senate. Beside each of their
names will be their party affiliation and the district they represent (this only applies to members of the House because Senator's represent
the entire state). At the end of each of their statements, I have included a paragraph explaining more clearly why the voted the way they
did. This may be helpful in deciphering what their comments really mean and help you in deciding how you feel about the issues. Be sure to
state how you feel on the "Opinion" page!

YEA

NAY

Senator Kay Hagan (D-NC)

Congressman Robert Pittenger (R-NC09)

No comment, but voted "YEA"

America should absolutely support our farmers and a generous

society should provide a robust safety net for those in need. Sadly,

Congressman Richard Hudson (R-NC08)

This agreement provides certainty to North Carolina's
agriculture community by enhancing the critical safety net our
producers need when they put their crops in the ground [...] Since
the beginning of this debate, I have fought hard for significant
savings and I am disappointed that this agreement does not cut
more from the food stamps program. However, the bill slashes
over $23 billion to help reduce the debt by finding responsible
savings in food stamps, eliminating direct payments completely,
consolidating or eliminating over 100 redundant programs, and
making commonsense reforms that will protect our farmers and
ensure our agriculture community thrives."
This bill is not perfect, and while I applaud Chairman Lucas for
his determination to get this agreement across the finish line, there
are several programs important to North Carolinas livestock and
poultry producers that we still must address. I look forward to
working on those issues with my colleagues and continuing my
work on behalf of our producers and agriculture community
(Hudson par. 1).
Congressman Hudson represents the 8th Congressional District of
North Carolina. He is the only North Carolina representative to
serve on the Agricultural Committee in the House of
Representatives. Congressman Hudson supported the Farm Bill
because of the cuts that were made to the food stamps program
and also because of the need for agricultural subsidies in his
district. Congressman Hudson would have liked to see more cut
from the food stamps program, but decided to support the Farm
Bill because he believes it will only lead to more cuts in the future.
He also wants to see less stagnation in Congress and believes this
bill is something both Democrats and Republicans can work
together on to help protect the agricultural sector.

special interest groups know that combining these separate

programs into one deceptively-named bill makes it easier to hide
wasteful spending."
Most Americans dont realize that eighty percent of spending in
the farm bill goes to food stamps, and that loopholes and loose
eligibility requirements have contributed to food stamp recipients
doubling since 2000. This bill does little to close those loopholes,
cutting spending by only one percent."
My goal is for agriculture, food stamps, and food safety
programs to each stand alone, on their own merits, enabling
Congress to provide better oversight of how your tax dollars are
spent (Pittenger par. 1).
Congressman Robert Pittenger represents the 9th Congressional
District in the House of Representatives. Congressman Pittenger
firmly believes in supporting farmers through agricultural
subsidies, but does not believe this bill addresses their needs. He
instead, calls for each of the components of the bill to be separate
bills so that Representatives can make decisions on the issues on
an individual basis. He opposes the massive allotment of money to
food stamps, which is his main reason for opposing the bill.
Congressman Pittenger believes the Farm Bill was a pork-barrled
piece legislation that was misnamed to gain support by
Republicans. He instead wants to see the Farm Bill contain only
components aimed at helping agriculture and not other pieces of
legislation.
Senator Richard Burr (R-NC)
"Yesterday, I voted against final passage of the Conference
Report to accompany HR 2642, the Farm Bill. Not only does it
carry a nearly $1 trillion price tag but most of the funding has
nothing to do with farming, let alone providing any certainty to
farmers. It also fails to include relief to farmers on burdensome
GIPSA Restrictions and Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) rules.
While I appreciate the efforts of the Conference Committee, its
failure to address the crucial needs of North Carolina farmers
prevented me from supporting the bill" (Burr par. 1).
Senator Richard Burr is a Republican representing the state of
North Carolina in the United States Senate. He believes in cutting
spending, reducing taxes, and less government involvement. These
are his core reasons for opposing the Farm Bill. Senator Burr
believes that there were not even cuts to the food stamps program
and would like to have seen more support given to farmers. He also
opposes the Farm Bill because he believes it does not do enough to
help the farmers who rely on agricultural subsidies.

Hudson, Congressman Richard. "Hudson Stands in Support of the Farm Bill".

Youtube. 18 June 2013. Web. 28 October 2014.

Sources:
Burr, Senator Richard. "Senator Burr Releases Statement on the Farm Bill." Richard Burr U.S. Senator North Carolina. 5 February 2014. Web.
23 September 2014.
Hudson, Congressman Richard. "Hudson Stands in Support of the Farm Bill". Youtube. 18 June 2013. Web. 28 October 2014.
Hudson, Congressman Richard. "Hudson Votes to Provide Certainty to North Carolinas Farmers and Ranchers." U.S. Congressman Richard
Hudson. 1 January 2014. Web. 23 September 2014.
n.a. "Crop Insurance". Wikipedia. 1 March 2014. Web. 25 October 2014.
n.a. "In Senate, Bipartisan Support is Key to Farm Bill." The Seattle Times. 30 January 2014. Web. 22 September 2014.
Pittenger, Congressman Robert. "Congressman Pittenger Votes Against Misnames 'Farm Bill'." U.S. Congressman Robert Pittenger. 29

January 2014. Web. 23 September 2014.

Plumer, Brad. "The $956 Billion Farm Bill, In One Graph." The Washington Post. 28 January 2014. Web. 22 September 2014.

WEBSITE (HTTP://WWW.WEEBLY.COM/?UTM_SOURCE=INTERNAL&UTM_MEDIUM=FOOTER&UTM_CAMPAIGN=3)

POWERED B