equipped with ebt machines or technology. this discussion around convenience stores supports the argument you can make on the puerto rico amendment. you could reference -- for example, showed convenience stores in remote areas as similar to what we're talking about here in the country as it is in puerto rico. the cash benefit program of the -- the grant program -- the program establishment in 1982. at the time, the administration recognized the purgative of the government to decide upon this benefit form. in fact, the consumer services testified before this committee when questioned about the gas benefit rules, that the reagan administration did not -- the s.n.a.p. program, it would be a breach of faith to support the puerto rico plan, simply because it chooses a different benefit form. after all, puerto rico is given the charge to develop a plan with minimal restrictions

imposed by usda and puerto rico knows better what is feasible than those here in washington. i also started a petition to this amendment, mr. chairman. there was no hearing on this one. our -- there was no consultation. usually, a member from a particular district would introduce something that affects that district. here we have, you know, this committee making a decision for puerto rico without consulting the resident commissioner or with the government of puerto rico. and it just -- you know, to dub this amendment -- this realization is to harm the people of puerto rico. and i urge members to reject this amendment. and i yield back my time, mr. chairman. >> the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. are there any additional requests for recognition? seeing none, we shall proceed to vote. the question is on the amendment. number 89. all those in favor of amendment

number 89, signify so by saying aye. all those opposed, signify by saying no. the chair is in doubt. a roll call has been requested before he can acknowledge he's in doubt. the clerk will call the roll, please. >> mr. goodlatte. >> aye. mr. johnson. >> yes. >> mr. king. >> aye. >> mr. nagbauer. aye. >> mr. connoway. aye. >> mr. fortenberry. >> yes. >> mrs. schmidt. >> aye. >> mr. thompson. >> aye. >> mr. rooney. >> mr. stutzman. >> aye.

>> mr. begins. gibbs. >> aye. >> mr. austin-scott. >> aye. >> mr. tipton. >> aye. >> mr. southerland. mr. crawford. mrs. roby. >> aye. >> mr. heelsamp. >> aye. >> mr. desjarlait. >> aye. >> mrs. he will%. >> aye. >> mr. gibson. >> no. >> mr. hope green. >> aye. >> mrs. hartzler. >> aye. >> mr. shilg. >> aye. >> mr. ribble. >> aye. >> mrs. necessarily many. >> aye. >> mr. peterson. >> no. >> mr. holden. >> no. >> mr. mcintire. >> aye.

>> mr. baca. >> no. >> mr. cardoza. >> no. >> mr. david scott. >> no. >> mr. quayle. >> aye. >> mr. costa. >> no. >> mr. walz. >> no. >> mr. schrader. >> no. >> mr. kissle. >> no. >> mr. owens. >> no. >> ms. pingree. >> no. >> mr. courtney. >> no. >> mr. walsh. >> no. >> ms. fudge. >> no. >> mr. saab lan. >> no. >> ms. sooul. >> no. >> mr. mcgovern.

>> no. >> mr. rooney. >> yes. >> mr. southerland. >> aye. >> mr. crawford. >> yes. >> mr. bosswell. >> no. >> mr. chairman. >> yes. >> mr. chairman, the vote is 27 yays to 19 nays. >> the number 89 carries. the gentle lady from maine seeks recognition. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

i am the co sponsor of amendment 3, it's at the desk and i would like to call it up. >> amendment number 3 will be distributed by the clerk and the gentle lady is recognized for five minutes for explanation when she is ready. >> thank you very much, mr. chair. this is a very simple co -- no-cost amendment that would give a little more control to state and local communities by authorizing their schools, those schools who have low annual commodity entitlement values, mostly small rural schools, to start making more of their own food purchases. the basic idea behind it is to allow for more local purchasing of food, more fresh food from the area to be included in school lunch programs. these would allow the usda to implement a small program that would implement some of their program dollars from the food distribution program to make their own purchases and make those decisions. only low commodity entitlement value schools would be allowed to participate. but it would also include a

demonstration project in which at least ten schools from around the country could test alternative farm to school procurement models. some urban, some rural, some tribal schools, and at least one on a military base. basically, what we're attempting to do here is to allow farmers to sell more food locally, to allow kids to get more acquainted with fresh food that comes from farms, and do something that we think will be good for the health of schools and health of our kids. we've talked earlier in other amendments about the obesity epidemic going on, and also the interest in getting more fresh foods into our school programs and i think this is a good way to go about doing it. i visited many school lunch programs in my state, and in many communities, particularly small, rural communities. but in one of my urban areas, they're doing a lot more with attempting to it get fresh food into the schools and have kids get to know farmers and have kids get to see where our food comes from. it's striking to me when you

visit one of these programs and sit down and eat lunch with kids, they love eating fresh foods. they like more foods than we assume they're going to. and often because they make the connection with a farmer or with buying locally. not only do they get interested in eating these foods, but many of them actually go home and tell their parents about it. i sat with a middle school in south burr wick, maine one day and watched kids eating saw thaied came and garlic. they were eating it, and i think many go home and say to their parents and say hey, we ought to try this kale stuff. a school recently opened up a salad bar and the first graders were swarming the salad bar when it was there and were excited to know where a carrot came from and it was part of their school lunch. i think it's a simple amendment. i think it would begin to expand the opportunities for local school food programs. we've talked to food service directors from around our state and in other states. we know that this is a very popular thing, and they're

interested in doing more. but like most departments of education, their budgets are strapped, and so they would like to have the opportunity to use some of their usda money. i appreciate the opportunity to work with mrs. elmers and mr. gibson on this, and i know there is a unique program in north carolina implementing this. and i think many of you probably are aware of schools in your own states that are increasingly interested in this. so i urge everyone's support of it, and think that it's just a great opportunity to do more for our farmers who are looking for more marjoritikets and young ki need to get back in the habits of eating fresh, healthy food. i yield back the balance of my time. >> for what purpose does the gentle lady from north dakota seek recognition? >> i yield to strike the last word. >> recognized for five minutes. >> i thank my friend from maine, ms. pingree and also my friend mr. gibson for bringing this amendment to the floor. i'm in favor of it and i urge my colleagues to vote for it as

well. basically what this does, it is a no-cost amendment. this would give more control to the states and local communities. by authorizing schools and other service institutions to use program dollars from the usda food distribution program to make their own purchases of food from agriculture producers in their own communities. my state of north carolina, as ms. pingree has pointed out, already has a state-run farm-to-school program that allows schools to get fresh produce from farmers. while north carolina can be used as ray great example for the program's success, my hope is to see other states and school districts better utilizing taxpayer moneys while also helping their local farmers and ranchers. this amendment would enable schools participating in this pilot -- it is just a pilot -- to start getting even more food products from their own farmers and ranchers, instead of having to buy usda's entitlement foods.

my amendment would authorize schools with low annual commodity entitlement values as ms. pingree pointed out, small, rural schools, to start making their own purchases. and in the long run, this would be and reduce administrative costs and be a savings. the amendment would also create a demonstration project in at least ten schools. ms. pingree pointed out they would be -- it would be a test, an alternative farm-to-school procurement model, selecting a variety of urban, rural and tribal schools across the nation by varying sizes and with varying levels of participation in school meal programs. at least one pilot will occur on a military base. these pilot programs would provide congress with needed data, as well, on the cost effectiveness and ways to supply schools with meal programs. farm-to-school programs are a win for kids, a win for farmers and a win for communities.

so please vote yes on my amendment. thank you. and i yield back the remainder of my time. >> the gentle lady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> to strike the last word, mr. chairman. >> the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank my colleagues for their leadership on this issue. for all of the reasons that were just mentioned in terms of the value to nutrition vitally important, let me also say this is something that teachers and administrators have asked for in new york. i see this as a strengthening of the bond between the school and the farms, already talk of potential field trips out to the farms to see the produce as it's progressing and growing. and, you know, at a time when we look at the average age of farmers and we know that they're aging and we need to inspire a new generation to come forward and to take on the mantle of farming, this is a program to do that. i think it will strengthen the

bond between schools and farmers. i proud to support it and ask my colleagues to do the same. thanks very much. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. i believe the gentleman from texas seeks recognition, mr. connoway. >> thank you, mr. chairman. month move to strike the last word. >> recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. maybe the author can help answer this. we've got ten schools that the agriculture may establish these farm-to-school programs and on the requirements, we use the word "shall" and there are four things that must be considered in every demonstration project. the question is, if a particular school really doesn't need to test out one of the -- one of these four, does that exclude them then from being able to be considered? in other words, they use the word "shall", do you put a square peg in a round hole? and i tend to support your amendment. it is maybe something you want to look at between now and when you come back to the floor. >> great.

i hadn't thought about that technicality. and i think it's a worthy consideration. i appreciate your interest in it. certainly, we would be willing to look at the language on that before we get it to the floor, if we are lucky enough to pass, which i'm sure it will be very widely supported. >> yield back. thank you, sir. >> the gentleman yields back. does anyone else seek additional recognition? the ranking member. >> mr. chairman, i support the amendment. >> the gentleman yields back his time. the chair would strike the last word, and yield himself five minutes and denote that while i appreciate the gentle ladies' plural, support for schools gaining access to local foods, i'm a little concerned that this amendment would allow some schools to receive cash instead of usda commodities. any decline in nationwide participation would erode usda's ability to provide food to schools at a lower price. usda does not, after all, supply 100% of foods schools need to

serve meals. schools have other cash resources that could be used to buy locally, if they so choose. and furthermore, the bill already -- the base bill already provides a smaller, more controlled pilot that will allow five states to use their allocation under the dod fresh fruit and vegetable program to buy local produce. therefore, i appreciate the effort of my colleagues, but i must be opposed to the amendment. and would w that, i yield back. anyone else seeking recognition. seeing no additional requests, we'll proceed with a vote. all of those in favor of amendment number 3, signify so by saying aye. all opposed? well [ laughter ] well, it would appear even with my ten here, the ayes have it. the ayes do indeed have it. amendment number 3 is adopted.

are there any additional amendments to title 4? is let's see. sorry, mr. -- for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? >> i have amendment 40. >> would the clerk distribute amendment number 40? the gentleman is recognized to explain his amendment and may begin whenever he is ready. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment will bring some much-needed common sense accountability to the fastest-growing program in this entire bill. and that would be the s.n.a.p. program. over the past decade spending on s.n. acht p./food stamps has exploded by nearly 300%. since 2002, as a consequence, we have gone from what was a 50/50 split between the farmer side of the bill and the nutrition side to this particular base bill

becomes 80% s.n.a.p. and 20% for the farmer side. and my mind, this isn't a farm bill much anymore. it can more rightly be called a food or s.n.a.p. bill. in fact, while the underlying bill cuts -- talks about cutting 2% from the proposed baseline, which it does, the proposed baseline is still 22% more over the next five years compared to the last five. and most americans would not call that a cut. but just a few months ago, this committee did agree on ways to fulfill the request of the budget committee and the entire house where we found at least $33 billion in savings over the next decade in the s.n.a.p. program. in fact, we exceeded the committee's request and found nearly $36 billion in responsible savings by rooting out waste, fraud abuse and loopholes, and as many of us said, took not one calorie off the plate of a deserving person. the underlying bill includes only three of the provisions we

passed back then, and will fully restore all of the provisions from the reconciliation bill. it would fully close the loophole. also eliminate the automatic indexing of s.n.a.p. nutrition programs for the states, not individuals. it would end the s.n.a.p. increase from the stemless bill early, currently scheduled for next fall and eliminates the 50/50 s.n.a.p. employment and training for states, requiring states to spend their own money if they would like to fund additional programs of their own. in total, the savings from these reforms together with those in the base bill will achieve savings roughly equal -- it sounds like big numbers. it is, because over the next decade, we will spend approximately $800 billion on s.n.a.p. the savings with this amendment will roughly equal waste, fraud and abuse in the program. and today i believe we have a clear choice with this amendment. will we follow through on the responsible modifications? a strong majority of us agreed a few months ago. will we follow on the belief that the nutrition title could

sustain reasonable and responsible savings without impacting those who truly need assistance? will we close the loopholes that certain folks and states are misusing? and make certain that food stamps or slash stamp benefits will go to those in need? i hope so is my answer to those three questions. i believe the taxpayers deserve it. the persons truly in need deserve it. and the children who inherit the massive debt that is coming from washington has come, they deserve, i believe, this amendment. i encourage each of you to join me in supporting these common sense reforms to restore our reconciliation intentions. our pledge to do our part in deficit reduction. and i think ultimately, common sense accountability in this s.n.a.p. program. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back my time. >> the gentleman yields back. the chair will recognize mr. baca for a request from california. >> move to strike the last word.

>> the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, i oppose this amendment. this is a misguided amendment that would substitute $16.5 billion in s.n.a.p. cuts in the underlying bill for the $33 billion in s.n.a.p. cuts that were already included as part of the budget reconciliation process. this doubles the damage of the current misguided proposal we have before us. in addition to the cuts, it includes the underlying bill. this amendment would eliminate the recovery act, s.n.a.p., increases causing benefits, levels to drop by over 13%, deepen the standard utility allowance cut by $14 billion. eliminate indexing for s.n.a.p. nutritional education funds, critical to fighting the growing obesity crisis. we have a moral obligation to help put food on the table for americans struggling to get by these tough, economic times. unfortunately, this amendment returns us to the irresponsible

policies of the ryan budget and reconciliation plan, which leaves millions of undeserving americans out in the cold. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. >> the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. i believe the gentleman from texas, mr. naggerbauer, seeks recognition. >> i thank you, mr. chairman. we've been talking about families and families that are in it need, and you know, i want to tell you about another little family that's making $24,000 a year. unfortunately, this family is spending $37,000 a year, and so they're spending $13,000 more a year than they're making. and they just got their credit card statement the other day. and they found out that they owe $160,000 on their credit card. i think everybody would agree, that's a family that's got limited upside. unfortunately, the little family that i was just talking about is

the united states of america. we have about $2.4 trillion in revenues, we're spending about $3.7 trillion. and what that little family is facing is what families all across the country are facing. we're going to have to make some tough choices. they cannot continue to sustain those kinds of deficits. this amendment, again, really begins to bring reform to a program that's expanding at an unsustainable rate. and if you don't do something approxima about the growth in a lot of these programs, we're fast reaching a point where we're not able to provide the benefits that we're providing today. and so this is something that this committee has already voted on. we voted on it a few months ago. and so if we want to help that little family have a future, we're going oh to have to make some tough choices. i would encourage my members to support this amendment. with that, i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back.

the now recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts for a request. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i move to strike the last word. >> the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, it should come as no surprise to anybody that i oppose this amendment, given the fact that is goes much farther in terms of cutting s.n.a.p. than the underlying bill. and what this would do, if we were to enact this, it would exacerbate a major problem that already exists in this country. and that is a problem of hunger and food and security. there is not a single congressional district that is hunger-free. and if you were to embrace this, which is not reform, this is just plain cutting, you know, millions more people would be without this benefit. and people talk about the deficit and the debt and the context of cutting s.n.a.p. let me point out to my colleagues here, hunger costs. there is a cost to hunger.

so if you have a child who doesn't eat on a regular basis, and his immune system is compromised and he gets a common cold, chances are he'll end up in an emergency room and perhaps spend a night or two in the hospital. that costs our country. children who are hungry who go to school don't learn. there's a cost to that. working people who do not have access to proper nutrition, costs in terms of lost productivity. i go on and on and on. there were studies that talk about the billions of dollars it costs our society to deal with the issue of food and security and hunger. so this has nothing. this does nothing to try to tamp down our deficit or our debt. and i just -- i point out one other thing here. you know, we recently -- i'm on the rules committee, recently had the defense appropriations bill -- authorization bill before the rules committee. and the -- i remember -- i asked

the chairman of the budget committee, mr. ryan, how much have we borrowed to pay for the wars in afghanistan and iraq? how much have we borrowed? he said $1.3 trillion. so it's okay to borrow for war. not ask anybody to pay anything for it. but when it comes down to programs that actually help provide security to poor and vulnerable people in this country, everybody has got the meat axe out. well, i'll tell you, this is the wrong thing to do. and, you know, chairman -- mr. chairman, you made clear that the farm bill would hopefully not contain s.n.a.p. cuts of this size, and i hope that you prevail on this. but this is the wrong thing to do and i urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to resoundingly reject this. i yield back my time. >> the gentleman yields back. i believe the gentle lady from ohio, ms. schmidt, seeks recognition. >> i move to strike the last word. >> the gentle lady is recognized for five minutes. >> while it may not be a

surprise that mr. mcgovern might be opposed to this bill, it may be a surprise that i'm also opposed to this amendment, as well. i have actually worked in food banks. i continue to volunteer there. i've seen hunger at its worse. in one week's time in two different gas stations, there were people there dividing their $10 bill between the food inside the convenience store and the gas. and yes, i filled up their tank with gas in both cases. there is a great deal of need that is in america today. and it is growing every single day. what we have -- i believe accomplished in this bill is to look at what we are spending and pare it back a bit with reforms so the truly needy can have what they need. i recognize my good colleague's attempt at trying to get at the deficit. but i think increasing it to $33 billion in cuts is now going to

get into the pockets of those people that truly, truly need it. and therefore, i am opposed to this, and i ask each and every one of my colleagues to look in their heart and look in their soul. and if you haven't volunteered at a food bank, i suggest this weekend you go to your local food bank and volunteer. i yield back my time. >> gentle lady yields back. i believe the gentleman from indiana seeks recognition. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i move to strike the last word. >> the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i commend mr. heelscamp for bringing forward this amendment. we've had this conversation before. and i know we've dealt with an amendment prior to this about cutting food stamps, and i'll tell you, we at some point are going to have to realize, it's not just food stamps. it's all of the other programs on top of this particular program that are available to constituents of ours, whether it's unemployment benefits, whether it's the school lunch

programs. these programs continue to grow larger and larger and larger. we have over 44 million people in america on food stamps. and, yes, maybe times are tough right now. but at what point are we going to recognize the fact that we continue to sink our country further and further into debt that only our children and grandchildren are -- we hope can pay back the costs that we're passing on to them? and it's these particular types of programs that we may be putting a band-aid on a problem, but let's fix the real root of the problem, and that is growing this economy. that is letting people invest their dollars into small businesses, start-up businesses, and growing the economy where folks have the ability to go to work and to earn a paycheck and to provide for themselves. i understand that people -- there are times that people have to make ends meet, and this is a program that can help them do

that. but 44 million people in america are on this particular program by itself. that doesn't include unemployment benefits. it doesn't include school lunch programs. this is something that i believe we're going to have to face the facts that we have plenty of food in this country. and whether it's using a food pantry, whether it's using charitable groups, churches, organizations out there that are helping people, we are only making the problem worse. and we've seen the growth that this particular program has had over the last decade. in 2002, this program cost $262 billion. today, it's well over $750 billion. at what point do we realize that the last decade -- this is out of control. and so i -- i think for us to go to the number that was passed in this committee under