In a letter to USDA Secretary Vilsack the lawmakers said extending the sign up period would encourage additional participation. “We believe an extension to December 31 should be made permanent to give producers additional time to make informed decisions and to improve program participation,” the lawmakers wrote.

I believe this is a good compromise. It’s another example of what the Agriculture Committee has consistently done so well. No one gets everything they want but, at the end of the day, I believe this bill will provide the transparency consumers crave while, at the same time, allow continued innovation in food production.

With Regulation Automated Trading, the CFTC has proposed some rules to try to prevent future market disruptions caused or made worse by automated and algorithmic trading. This rulemaking is still open and the CFTC continues to work to get it right.

Food insecurity around the world has an impact on national security, which is why today’s hearing is important. I don’t think a lot of people understand the important role agriculture can play when it comes to our country’s national security interests – a strong agriculture sector and stable food supply are critical to national security.

States have a lot of flexibility when it comes to administering SNAP and it’s important that, especially as we continue our review and look ahead to possible policy changes, we keep a close eye on their work. We’ve made significant progress in eliminating waste, fraud and abuse in SNAP. It is very difficult for recipients to cheat the system.

While I prefer the House passed voluntary approach for the labeling of food produced from genetically engineered crops, I will support the Senate GMO labeling bill should it come to a vote in the House and I will encourage my colleagues to join me.

Today’s announcement brings us closer to providing clear labeling guidelines for genetically engineered crops. A patchwork of labeling laws across state lines is simply not workable and I am committed to finding a solution that balances the consumer desire for information with the scientific evidence of the safety of these crops.

I believe this is the 15th hearing the Committee has held to review SNAP – it’s certainly been a thorough review. Hopefully what we learn today can be combined with the information from past hearings and we can focus on developing good policy.

Political documents in a political year are not the answer to improving nutrition programs. This proposal is strikingly similar to amendments that nearly derailed the 2014 Farm Bill. I believe that if the House chooses to go down this path we will never be able to pass another farm bill.

This is a challenge but I also think it presents a great opportunity for production agriculture. While many have no problem throwing food away, many Americans are still struggling to feed their families. There is a role for farmers and ranchers to play. They can, and should, step up to the plate to meet these needs.