consequences on more than 920,000 participants in the state of alabama alone. currently, the snap provides essential support for over 165,000 individuals in my district alone. it is by $16.5 billion which will mean that more than 2 million low income families will be forced off food stamps. it means that 280,000 children low-income families whose eligibility for free lunch program and free food meals will be in jeopardy. these $16.5 billion in proposed cuts in my opinion are unconscionable. the households affected by the cuts will be disproportionately those of low income seniors and people with disabilities and working poor, working poor families and children. there is no dispute that times are hard and challenging and we have to make very difficult,

budgetary decisions. however, weep cannot do it at the expense of the most vulnerable in our society, our children and our seniors. 60% of the households receiving snap in my district in alabama have children under the age of 18. the median income for the households receiving snap in my district, 11,647 a year. when i think of the face of the people who are on snap, it is the face of a child in my district who may go without free lunch. it is the face of a child who this summer is longing for school to start so that they may get at least two meals that day. last year, my district was ranked the fifth hungriest district in america. while i have a large number of agricultural needs and great farmers in my district and i've worked hard with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to

make sure that this farm bill addresses their childrens, i support the changes that we've made in this farm bill that would support the crops and farmers in my district. i support and thank the chairman and the ranking member for all they have done to address the needs of the 1890s as well as the quip program. so i would support this farm bill if we would not make any cuts to the stamp program. >> i thank the chairman for their leadership on this and i ask my colleagues to consider the face of stamp in their district. i would beg to say that i'm sure they can think of a child that is in need. today i stand with my colleagues in strong opposition to the cuts we're about to make and i support the mcgovern amendment and i support my colleagues and their efforts to make sure that no child in america should go hungry. thank you.

>> gentle lady yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does mr. nagbower seek recognition? >> i've been listening to the discussion here today and i don't think there's anybody unsympathetic to people in hard times. i think what i am confused about is where people would object to reforming something that is not working correctly. over the years, i've been in the real estate business and had rental property and one time i had a tenant call me up and said, randy, i'm going to have to move out of this house. i said why is that? he said well, the gas bill is too high. i said how much is it? and it was too high. it turns out that what was wrong was there was an underground gas leak out in the yard, and so we went out -- these people were still getting gas to their

house, but there was waste there because gas was seeping out of the line. we fixed the gas line and the gas bill went down substantially. so all we're talking about here is let's make sure that the gas is getting to the people that need it, but let's don't let the gas be leaking out where people are not qualified, where people are gaming the system and where states aren't taking on their responsibility and all of the amendments that i'm looking at here do not cut benefits to qualified individuals at all, zero. nobody that qualifies for this. this is not a cut in people's benefits if they call phi for it. how you can look the american taxpayers in the eye and say, you know what? we'll look the other way for those people that are gaming the system or for states that are gaming the system or for inefficiencies in the system and how you can look at people working hard every day and paying taxes and how we told

them we're not going mess with that. so i think we'll divide this debate and the facts are no reduction in benefits, no reduction in benefits is in this bill nor is there any reduction in benefits for -- by the way, and i would preference that by saying would qualify for it. >> would the gentleman yield? >> then how do you account if you say that nobody will lose any benefits under this? how do you account for that with the cut of $16 billion and with the cbo saying that 2.8 at least million people will be removed from the rolls. >> what the cbo is saying there are 2.8 million people and that is not what the cbo said.

what the cbo said was that these people would be off the roads. the point that you're making is one in which you're making the decision to cut the 16 billion. >> we're reclaiming my time. all of the amendments being offered here today and the underlying bill doesn't reduce the eligibility requirement and basically what all of these amendments do is say that if you want to get these benefits, don't you have to apply for them and you have to qualify for them and whatever you can qualify for is the benefit you get, but in having this system is ways that people can get additional benefits by simply the state sending them a dollar's worth of money. that's unacceptable because what happens is they send them a dollar and automatically those

people get $60 or $80 more a month whether they qualify for it or not. there's no verification for that. i don't know why you would object to people having to substantiate, hey, i need help with my utility bills. so i think we have to talk about fixing the gas leak and fixing the gas leak and that will be the issue. with that, i yield back the balance of my team. >> the planning purposes that wield anticipate four votes at 3:00. i would indicate that the members that wield then reconvene. i do not expect an hour and a half vote on the floor, but to give members a little time we reconvene at 4:30 to continue the mark-up. we've made tremendous progress and i have on this question remaining to be recognized, mr. courtney, mr. ribbel, and to what -- >> i seek to strike the last

word. >> the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> briefly, if we look back in history when welfare reform went into effect in the 1990s, the operation and implementation of food stamps was given to states at the same time as part of an effort to make sure that people who are at the absolute edge would be able to have access to these -- to food stamps or snap and invested in the states, delegated to the states the decision about how they wanted to administer these programs. i mean, there's an irony here that the majority party that is on favor of delegateing to the states is now taking it back in terms of dictating how the governors are running their programs, and i would just say coming from the wealthiest state per capita in america, if you talk to the folks in the industry who are working at the food banks in suburban areas in the state of connecticut, they will tell you that this is a

very dangerous step that we're on the cusp of taking in terms of pulling back as far as essential access to food and nutrition services. >> mr. chairman, i would like to now yield to my friend from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern who had an additional comment he wanted to add. >> thank you. i thank the gentleman for yielding. let me say to my colleagues, we brought up the error rate. i should also say the error rate includes underpayments where the people didn't get benefits they were entitled to. i heard my colleagues talk about modest cuts and those are not numbers we made up and those are numbers from cbo and omb and other organizations that analyzed this stuff. that's real. to say that you have to take these people who are now are able to get benefits to put food on the table will no longer get them. that's -- that's not a reform.

that's a cut. let me say about categorical eligibility, it does not cause substantial snap benefits to go to non-needy benefits. people who receive snap benefits are eligible. in 2010 only 1.5% of all snap household his monthly disposable incomes above the poverty line. in other words, with categorical eligibility option in place, nearly 99% of all snap households have disposable incomes that leave them in poverty. in addition, for every $10 of snap benefits provided to households that qualify for snap because of categorical eligibility, more than $9 go to working households. categorical eligibility does not result in households being enrolled automatically. households must still apply to the regular application process which has rigorous procedures for documenting applicants' income and circumstances and categorical eligibility has not been a factor and that's

according to cbo. the reason why snap has grown is because the economy has been in tough shape and more and more people have qualified. if you want to reduce the amount of money we spend on snap then put people back to work. let's not pit the nutrition and food program against the farm programs. i think they're all one in the same. snap benefits are used to buy food. who buys food? farmers. farmers benefit from this as well. we shouldn't be pitting one group against the other. i'll just say, finally, one of my colleagues said it's not working properly. what's not working properly? >> the people are eligible for this benefit and this program is one of the most sufficient programs in our government and you want to look at something that's not working properly, go look at the pentagon budget and find a program that has as low an error rate as the snap program. you won't find it. this program continues to

improve. this is important. this is about helping people who are poor. this is not about giveaways to people who have much. this is about helping people who have almost nothing. ut approximating food on the table and making sure that there's everyone in the country has something to eat, and the notion that we're attacking this eligibility because it makes it easier for families in need to take advantage of the program, boy, what an awful idea to make sure that people who are in need actually get what they need. this is something that we should -- we should be defending this program, not assailing it and i urge my colleagues to support my amendment. >> does mr. courtney yield back the balance of his time? >> yield back. >> to what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin seek recogniti recognition? >> strike the last word. >> gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> first of all, mr. chairman, i appreciate the passion and the

concern that i hear from my colleagues regarding this nation's poor. we need to make sure that the nation of the poor is taken care of. i believe we ought to have an opportunity in society that ought to have a safety net and we have an effective safety net as we heard from my colleague, mr. mcgovern. however, this has been painted in the wrong terms today. it's always painted in terms of $16 billion. it's not $16 billion. $16 billion over a decade which is $1.6 million a year. $1.65, thank you. let's be clear. at the height of the recession unemployment in this country was 10%. at the height of the recession in this country when unemployment was 10%, snap spent $53,633,000. this year it's up $22 billion, an increase of 7. -- i'm sorry,

an increase of $22 billion. each if we rolled snap back all 16 billion in one lump sum we would spend more than we would have spent at the height of the recession. this cut, alleged cut, it's not really a cut, it would decrease in the rate of growth from 10.8% to 8.5%. all at a time when the president's traipsing around the country, telling the american people that unemployment under his watch from 2009 has gone from 10% to 8.2% and that 4.9 million americans are back to work. if, in fact, those statements are true by the president of the united states and if, in fact, those numbers are correct, no reason to doubt that they are, then, in fact, we ought to be looking at adjusting snap because more and more americans are working. the unemployment's gone down in this country and we ought to be

adjusting it, otherwise we'll be in a place where it's never, ever enough, and i want poor people to have food. i want children to eat well. and i believe my colleagues on this side of the aisle want it, just like i believe my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want it, but we must shape it debate honestly and we have to look at it honestly and correctly. the rate of the growth -- the rate of growth is going down and it's a recognition of an improving economy, and one that's going in the other direction. mr. chairman, i yield back. gentleman yields back. what purpose does the gentleman from vermont seek recognition. >> >> strike the last word. >> the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> there are three points. first of all, real people are going to be affected by the cuts, and that has been spoken

to by many of my colleagues and it's people who need nutrition who aren't going get it as a result of this, and second to the extent that members have to eliminate any waste, fraud or abuse and we have a responsibility to do that and all of us on both sides of the aisle are willing to incorporate any practical suggestions to get what is already a very lower ror rate even lower, but third, this debate about food stamps dift stills what is a fundamental division in this congress about what kind of economy and what steps we should take to get the kind of economy that respectively, we think we need. you know, whatever we say about the food stamp program, the need is great, but it's in the context where on one side many of us who support this amendment would be willing to pay for it by raising some taxes.

we actually think raising taxes on folks over $250,000 is something that should be done in order to contribute to get our debt down because when my colleagues make an argument that the debt is real, and it's a legacy that we'll give to our grandkids the right, that's a serious problem, but the question i think a lot of us are asking and a lot of americans are asking is whether the fix is in in a way that works against regular people who don't really have a say. i mean, how do we get here. we have a debate about that, but from my perspective, when we have two tax cuts that didn't necessarily generate the income that was promised and my point of view, and a lot of folks disagree with me and we went to war in iraq and afghanistan, and whether you thought those were wise decisions or not and they were just put on the credit card and they were never paid for and the prescription drug program sponsored by president obama and compassionate motivation and tried to help folks and seniors get access to drugs and this

wasn't paid for and this added up to the nightmare of debt and then we had the collapse of the financial sector and point to fannie mae and we had runaway, reckless conduct on wall street and individuals that were buying mcmansions they couldn't afford. the economy blows up and the deficit blows up with it and the need for food stamps grows and so then a lot of us ask that why is it that the remedy go with people who had nothing to go with wall street and did not receive benefit from those tax cuts and we're asking them to pay the price with lower food stamps when your kids were going to be hungry. that's a fundamental debate that this congress is engaged in on every issue and we have perhaps an honest difference of opinion, but what i am saying to you is if it takes revenues to pay for these food stamps i'm all in. i'm willing to do that. let the voters decide whether my

decision is wise or not. i want to yield a minute of my team to my good clegg from georgia, mr. spot and my colleague from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern. >> thank you. one point i did want to mention, a couple of my colleagues brought up a couple of points that i want to clarify. i know he brought up a point about assessing income limits that he talked about, but i want to talk about that according to the united states department of agriculture, just 2.9% of these families, just 2.9% lived in households that exceeded the program's income limits. a very, very small amount, and i think that's for the record and to mr. conaway's point about the charges which are will and good, but a recent study came out from the bread for world study that says that every church in order to reach mr. conaway's

conclusion, every church in america would have to contribute $50,000 every year to make up for the proposed cuts in this bill. every single church in this country, $50,000 a year to show the two points there. final point i want to make so everyone understands, the average time that a beneficiary stays on the food stamp program is just nine months. folks, this program does not deserve this kind of draconian cut of $16 billion. we're not evaluating it on its proper perspective. and i yield back to the senator. the gentleman from vermont, the gentleman from massachusetts?

does the gentleman have any remaining time? >> he actually does not. >> i thank the gentleman for his kind thoughts. i appreciate it. you're most welcome, sir. what purpose does mr. johnson seek recognition? >> i move to strike the last word. >> the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i have the highest regard for the sponsor of this amendment with whom i've actually joined on some issues that congressman welch addressed and concern about our waste and wars overseas and i actually attribute and agreed to a large extent to mr. welch's comments and with respect to the revenue aspect of the debt and however my comments are directed as much to the media who transmits to the public as even the members of the committee and that is agen with all due respect to the gentlemen and ladies who believe sincerely in their point of

view, i want to emphasize this is not draconian. these are not cuts. these are not an attack, frontal or otherwise on individuals who are legitimately receiving food stamp benefits. we all have constituents and we, in some cases, have family members that qualify for these and that's good. that's the purpose of a humane society, but i want to emphasize and it's critical that we make this point and that is that these reforms and they are, in fact, reforms. it's easy to be sichl liftic and say these are cuts, versus no cuts. these are reforms and common sense reforms and as sincere as all of the points that have been made are and the amendment is i haven't heard addressed yet any response to those specific areas that we've addressed, mr. lucas and mr. peterson, the bill has addressed. for example, the loophole and it

clearly is a loophole that states advantage and gains the system by sending a dollar voucher that an individual qualifies that simple receipt of a brochure qualifies for someone that we have an actual bounty system within the usda that actually encourages individuals to sign up, so to speak. this bill addresses the issue of lottery winners and we've seen several situations of lottery winners that instant lly worth millions who continue to qualify, of trafficking of these benefits of use in terms of liquor and tobacco, and the very thicks that many of our constituents talk about on a daily basis that are abuses of the system. so again, vitt highest regard for mr. mcgovern, mr. welch and mr. scott and others have raised on this point, but i want to say

to the american people and our constituents, we are not cutting. we are addressing common sense areas that are rife for reform and it is very important that we understand that because in the long run what's going to happen is if we don't deal with these issues, if we don't deal with the waste, fraud and abuse and if we don't deal with gaming the system and bounties and otherwise, the ultimate effect of this will be that those people legitimately receiving assistance and that nearly 80% of the benefits under the payments of this entire bill goes to snap benefits. if we don't deal with those issues in a four square way we'll bankrupt the system and so then we won't have a situation of having to deal with common sense reform. we'll have a system that goes belly up and we won't be able to have benefits for everybody and i don't think anybody wants that. i think mr. welch makes good points and so does mr. mcgovern with how we waste federal dollars and i'm probably alone

on this is aing we need to address the revenue side of the national debt and we need to look carefully at that and mr. mcgovern has been a leader in the areas of in my judgment and the wasted federal dollars that we get fighting wars that we can't win and at the end of the day we have to have a cumulative approach of shared sacrifice and i would suggest that weir, by these -- but by the underlying bill we are addressing common sense reforms that make sense for the system that will long run, sustain a system that provides help for people who most need it without overreaching and providing benefits for those who don't. so again, with all due respect i oppose the amendment and it goes a long way toward addressing a number of abuses and i hope we can all share in the sacrifices noes deal with the national debt and also constructively develop and give the american people a farm bill that works. thank you, mr. chairman. >> the gentleman yields back the

balance of his time. the chair has mr. cardoza and myself and it would be my intent to proceed with the vote after that. to what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> strike the last word. >> you are recognized for five minutes. >> i thank the chairman for yielding my time. i won't take all of the time. i just want to clarify for the record just a couple of points. a lot has been said about people gaming the system and getting benefits they're not entitled to. i hope no one here is implying that the vast majority of people receiving these benefits are somehow getting them illegitimately. as i said in the beginning the categorical eligibility enrolls you into the snap program doesn't guarantee you a benefit. what it does is it cuts down otter ror rate and it cuts down on expenses for the state and i thought we wanted to alleviate all of these burdens on the

state and the federal mandates. this is one thing that 40 states employ this categorical eligibility, but just because you are enrolled in the program doesn't mean you get a benefit. so these people who are getting benefits are entitled to getting benefits. the other thing i would say is that, you know, people say this is just reforming the program. cbo, omb, a hundred other groups that have analyzed this say 2 million to 3 million people who currently receive food benefits will no longer receive benefits. i don't know what you call that, vacation? i don't know what that is, but that is in my opinion, a cut. that there are millions of people who today get this benefit who tomorrow will not get this benefit and these people are not wealthy people. they are not members of congress and these are people struggling in this difficult economy and as we know as the economy gets

better, the amount that will be dedicated to pay for the snap program will decrease. that's the way this program works. i'll just close with this. the people that we're talking about here, you know, are poor. many of them are working poor and trying to put din or the table for their families and these aren't people trying to abuse the system or game the system. these are people just trying to get by and so the point of this amendment is simply this. we shouldn't balancing the budget on the backs of poor people. that doesn't mean these programs are perfect. it doesn't mean they don't need to be tweaked, but this is a significant cut, and it will mean something to people, and it will mean something to people in a very, very bad way, and i regret very much that this is part of this farm bill. if it stays it makes it impossible for me to support the farm bill, but i would urge my colleagues to think long and

hard before you go down this road. this is not where this should be cutting. >> i'd like to yield the remainder of my time to miss fudge. >> i thank you very much, and i thank the gentleman for yielding and i'll just say this. everyone here who has a household understands that things go up. the cost of food goes up. you talked about someone gave us an example about a gas leak. so in my part of the country, should i, in the wintertime just pay the gas bill and not put food on the table with the kids, everything goes up. and so some of the costs that are built into this food stamp program is because the cost of food is higher. and let me also say that, and i agree with mr. johnson, we all want fraud out of the system. i don't think there's anyone who sits in this room today that believes that we think it's okay for people to scam the system, but let me also suggest that if,