times ago. >> i have an amendment at the desk along with mr. baca, miss fudge, amendment number 21. >> the clerk will distribute amendment number 21. proceed when ready. >> i want to thank you and the ranking member for all the work you've done on this farm bill and there's some good things in this bill, but the cuts in s.n.a.p. i think make it, for me, a bill that i can't support unless it's changed. and amendment that i have eliminates $16.5 billion in cuts to the supplemental nutrition program, or s.n.a.p. these are misguided and they are hurtful. they take food away from hungry people. people who are poor, people who are working poor. people struggling to feed their families. i should also say to my colleagues that s.n.a.p. is the most effective and efficient federal program. in fact, the error rate was 3.8%

in 20 10, the lowest in the history of the program and the rate continues to decrease. it's false to say these cuts will not effect benefits or they merely are closing loopholes. these cuts will result in less food for hungry americans, period. the categorical eligibility cuts will result in 2 million to 3 million people being cut from s.n.a.p. entirely. the standard utility allowance cuts will cause 500,000 households to see their benefits cut by an average of $9 o a month. the cuts to the state performance fund will end a program that has resulted to few ror er errors and more being enrolled in s.n.a.p. cause 280,000 low-income kids to be cut out of the free school lunch program. overall, the cuts deprive low-income americans of nearly 1 billion meals in 2014 alone. what is low income?

mr. chairman, 8 85% of the families on s.n.a.p. are making less than $24,000 for a family of four. less than $24,000 for a family of four. members of congress don't qualify for s.n.a.p. we make too much money. but just think for a minute about how hard it would be for any of us sitting here to live off of less than $24,000 a year and still be able to support not only ourselves but our husbands and wives, our kids, and in many cases, our parents, too. mr. chairman, legislating is about making choices, and for those who support this bill with these cuts, you are choosing to do the wrong thing. and you are choosing to turn your back on the most vulnerable in our country. now, some talk about a culture of dependency as if getting on s.n.a.p. is somehow a lifelong goal. let me tell you, depending on s.n.a.p. to feed your family is no walk in the park. people don't sit back and dream about the day they can qualify for s.n.a.p. s.n.a.p. isn't a culture of

dependency, it's a last resort for people who have no place to turn. to call it a culture of dependency implies that people are poor by choice and that they enjoy needing this help. most people probably don't know that the average s.n.a.p. benefit is $1.50 per meal per day and that this will actually go down next year even as we do nothing because of previous cuts in the s.n.a.p. program. by cutting s.n.a.p., you're increasing the burden on the poor who either have to go hungry or somehow found help from non-profits who continue to struggle with donations in this difficult economy. by cutting s.n.a.p., you're decreasing the amount of money spent in communities all around the country causing a further drag on our struggling economy. in fact, these s.n.a.p. cuts would eliminate 19,000 jobs. that's reason enough to vote for our amendment. by the way, a lot of the beneficiaries of the s.n.a.p. program are farmers. there's a lot of hurt out in america today. unemployment is still too high.

families have to do more with less. but is going without food acceptable under any circumstances? millions of struggling americans have turned to their government as a last resort. they said, without help, i can't feed my kids. and after spending down most of their savings, selling their cars and making other serious cuts to their own budgets, they put their pride aside and accepted s.n.a.p. to feed their families. unfortunately, these cuts basically i think turn our backs on struggling families. and i think continue a practice of picking on poor people. let me just say one final thing. you know, it has become fashionable to blame the poor for our budgetary problems and diminish their struggles. we've all been elected supposely to lift people up, not put people down. and these cuts will have a very detrimental impact on millions of families. i say to my colleagues, if you

want to lower the amount of money we spend on snvmt a.p., get serious about job creation, put more people back to work. the more people that are working, the less we spend on s.n.a.p. cutting the program is not the right thing to do. i appeal to your hearts and conscience to stand with me on this and support my amendment. i thank the chairman for his indulgence. i yield back my time. >> the gentleman yields back his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. baca, for what purpose? >> strike the last word. >> gentleman is reck nized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman and ranking member. i, too, want to recognize mr. mcgovern, miss fudge, chellie pingree for the hard work we've done on this amendment. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment which is critical to the health, i state to the health and wellbeing of millions of americans. when we look at health and wellbeing, which means our health costs will also be going

down if people are healthy and eat the appropriate nutrition that they need or the additional food that they need,. our amendment restores cuts in the underlying bill to categorical eligibility, the standard utility allowance, the state performance fund. if these cuts are not repealed, they will negatively impact millions of low-income americans including seniors, and we look at seniors aross the nation, across our country. children that will be impacted and many of our veterans. 46 million americans rely on s.n.a.p. or food stamp to put food on the table every month. that means to put food on the table. 6 million californians rely on s.n.a.p. including 2 million children. this debate is about much more than the dollar figures. it's much more than the dollar figure. there is a very human cost to the actions we take today. so think about it. a human cost to the action we

take today. in the 2008 farm bill, we worked in a bipartisan manner to provide a record level of funding for nutritional programs. but this farm bill will turn back the clock on the progress we have made. 2 million to 3 million people would lose s.n.a.p. eligibility. 2 million to 3 million people would lose snap eligibility. many of them low-income seniors and children. 280,000 would lose access to free lunch meals. now, can you imagine, 280,000 children that would lose access to free meals? going to school on an empty stomach, being told to pass the test, and look at how it changed their attitude and their behavior in the classroom. when they're going in and they're asked to pass the test and you're going hungry. many of these kids, it's the only meal they have. they have no other meals. they have no other choices. they wish they had other

choices. they wish they were financially well off. they wish their parents had jobs that wouldn't be able to get the assistance, but they have no choice. 28% of the households in my district suffer from food hardship. in the inland empire where i come from, we are the fourth highest rate of food insecurity in the nation. my constituents need a strong and effective s.n.a.p. program to ensure they don't go hungry. and i want to state that i know the value of s.n.a.p. or food stamp because i once relied on food stamps. if it hadn't been for food stamps, i wouldn't have been able to feed my son or wife. i'm not relying on it. look at me now. i'm in the united states congress. but i relied on food stamps at one time to feed my family. there are many other individuals that are in the same kind of situation. they don't want to be on food stamps, but they have no choice but to put food on the table. many of them have lost their jobs, don't have a job right now. they wish they had a job. they wish we had turned our economy around, but we're in a

recession. and we should create the kind of jobs that would allow people to earn the kind of income that would say, i'm not relying on food stamps. i want to make sure that it's there. unless, you know, we've all been in that situation. i ask everyone here, how many have been in that situation? it's easy to make decisions and to do all the cutbacks because you haven't been affected. if you've been affected, you're going to think twice about the decision you make. out of sight, out of mind. but you have to think about yourself and others that have been in those kind of situations like myself and many others who have relied on food stamps to get them by. think about it before you make that kind of decision. let us all remember that s.n.a.p. is also good for our economy. look at the positive points, too, as well. in my home state of california, s.n.a.p. was responsible for $11.6 billion in new economic activity in 2011. that means jobs people had that

were created in our grocery stores, that allowed them to hire individuals. moneys that went back to the states, the counties and the cities because people were able to receive s.n.a.p. it's another form or revenue. yes, we should deal with government waste. there's no problem, and all of us have a problem with that. we've got to stop fraud and abuse. but that's where the social workers need to hold the accountability. let's not punish every individual for the few that get away and do a lot of the abuse. but what about, you know, waste in the department of defense or the banking system? you know, there's a lot of waste that's there. we still have to go after that waste, too, as well. we'd be saving a hell of a lot more and feeding people that would be going hungry now and make sure they're able to take care of their families and themselves and the pride they have. as a country we continue to spend millions of tldollars on

foreign assistance. in our country where people are going hungry, we have to take care of people right here in the united states that are going hungry. let's take care of them. let's make them solvent. let's make them become productive. let them be the taxpayers to provide the additional revenue we need. let's stop spending money overseas and start spending right here at home to take care. we have a moral responsibility to help our struggling brothers and sisters. vote yes on this amendment to restart the funding on snap program. i yield back to balance of my time. >> i would note to the membership i have a request to strike the last word from fudge, conaway, david scott, goodlet and costa. with that, the gentle lady, mrs. fudge is recognized. to strike the last word? >> yes, sir. >> the lady is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. mr. chairman? this farm bill passes out of this committee in its current

form, hunger and poverty will increase nationwide. children will suffer, seniors will suffer, the poorest among us will suffer. how can we justify $ca16.5 billn in cut to the food program when 70% of all recipients are families with children. how can we justify the cuts when 25% are senior sis zens or people with disabilities. i am a shamed that this committee has decided to target over 46 million people in america who depend on this essential lifeline. i've said in the past and i say again, i would love to extend an invitation to everyone on this committee who supports these cuts. come to my district and your eyes will be open. you'll see hungry people, not a lot of fraud. according to the 2011 usda data which i have a copy of, by the

way, on average every member of congress in this room on this committee represents districts with more than an average of 25,600 households, not people, households that rely on food stamps. just to give you an idea. mr. goodlet, 26,600 households. mr. king, 21,397. mr. nogbower, 27,290 families. mr. conaway, 24,814, and i can go on and on. every single member of this committee represents a significant number of poor people. so how do we say to these people, it's got to be fraud. can't be that many hungry people in america. you believe all of these people are fraudulent in your districts, then i believe you need to do something in your district. you don't need to punish every single person who is on food

stamps. think about it. please stop and think about the vote you will take today. join me and my colleagues, representatives mcgovern, baca, pendry, welch and sewell and support this amendment and oppose these cuts to snap because i guarantee you all of these people cannot be scamming the system. thank you. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> gentle lady's time has expired. the chair recognizes mr. conaway. strike the last word? >> mr. chairman, strike the last word. >> the gentleman is recognized for five. >> i thank mr. chairman and in talking about the opposition to the amendment, much of the conversation has been in terms of every single snap recipient having the benefits reduced and that's not what i understand what we've done here. we are simply limiting folks who don't qualify for income levels to get into the snap program and to not be a part of the program. one of our colleagues mentioned a guy who lost his job and how

horrible it is to go home and tell your family go home and do your job and i can't imagine that person doesn't qualify for snap. and on what really is happening here. it's a 2% reduction and planned growth in this program over the next ten years and yet the other side talks about 5% to 7% of the recipients being impacted or thrown off the program. i have a hard time making those numbers work in my head based on what we're trying to do. so i look at fiscal circumstances i have in our country and we're making hard choices over there as well to reduce spending in the defense of this country and i know this is hard stuff, but we all have grandchildren or we would really like to have grandchildren and some of the decisions we're making today have long-range impacts on their fiscal circumstances and yes, we have

near-term things to consider. i'm not offended when people in trouble have to turn to charities and have to turn to their churches and have to turn to their local labels because those groups are most efficient in dealing with these circumstances. we can't design rules and laws here in washington, d.c., that apply properly and the folks in midland, texas, and the church in midland is very efficient. they have link with the other churches in town and they know the folks that need food help and those folks get it. they also know the folks who are trying to scam the system and they work to try to not let that happen as well. we don't have anything nearly that efficient within the program. our colleague mentioned the 3.8% air rate and that means we're wasting the fraud abuses a mere $4 billion, excuse me. that's a sizeable amount of money. >> would the gentleman yield? >> no. and so we're all going have to

take a hard vote on this issue and we've looked at it and we've looked at the provisions and some of my colleagues would like to vote to try food stamp spending even more than the 16 that we proposed in this bill and i see it as a compromise to make sure we wind up with a bipartisan bill that comes up out of my committee. so these are targeted reductions that target folks who don't otherwise qualify to be on the programs and i'm hard pressed to offer the future americans that will be picking up the interest on the debt that we continue to accumulate. one final point. i hope my colleagues would join us and try to do the kinds of things that would expand the economy because every one of you said a growing economy helps

every single person in this group. so if it's the repeal of obama care later on this afternoon which is a huge impediment to growing this economy, i'm looking forward to my colleagues helping us with that in this regard because that would do more to help food scarcity in this country than anything i'm doing here and i'm opposed to the amendment and with that i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back his time. >> the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> you know, if we pass this bill out here today with $16 billion in cuts, it would be the most un-american thing that we could do, and i want you to think seriously about this. i think what we have here is an image problem. an image problem.

when you think of who's receiving food stamps, what do you think of? what do you see? for all too many of us, we're not seeing that person that benefits and needs food stamps. we're seeing some other image. we're seeing somebody that wants to use this for a lap dance. we're seeing somebody that wants to use food stamps to buy liquor when none of this is an actuality. when you look at food stamps and you think of the recipient of food stamps you need to think of that child out there that's going hungry. 87% of all of the snap beneficiaries are either

children, senior citizens on fixed incomes or single parents trying to raise their children and our veterans. that's who you're cutting here. that's what you're cutting. i've often said this right here to paraphrase shakespeare, when cesar said to brutus, this, this right here is the meanest cut of all. it's un-american. now let me tell you all something, 20% -- 20% of the population of my home state of georgia is on snap. can you imagine what a $16 billion cut would do? and most of these people -- yes,

all of these people are at the lowest end of the economic stream which is what i said in my remarks earlier on my amendment. they pay a higher disproportionate share of their income on food. we're talking about the basic requirement and so that's why i say this is un-american. there's absolutely no way that this can happen and to my friend from texas who brought our statistic after statistic, how do we know this? when we're dealing with food stamps, when we're dealing with assistance and we're dealing with each of these families, every situation is different. it's like a fingerprint. nobody's the same. how can we arbitrarily sit here and make these decisions and we know from cbo for sure.

they state that 2.8 million people will be off and lose their benefits if we do what is before us to do today. so i want you to think hard. i want you to think long. this is america. this is a country that is based upon us sharing and helping our fellow man. think about that veteran. think about that child. think about that struggling mother. that's what we've got to think about. that's what i want you to see when we look at who we're cutting this meanest cut of all to in this committee today, and i hope some of you will have a change of heart and let's vote down this or change it.

vote for the amendment and then let us come back and let's deal with it properly. we vote down the amendment, we can vote this out and we can feel good about america. i yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. just for a note to our colleagues rating for recognition, mr. goodlet, sewell, and ribbel and with that, for what purpose does mr. goodlat seek recognition? >> the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i've been listening to my friends on the other side of the aisle tell us that this is, to quote my good friend from georgia, the unkindest cut of all, but in point of fact it's not a cut at all. if you look at the numbers, it's very clear that food stamps have been increasing. they've increased 270% over the

last decade and they're going to continue to increase under this farm bill and when you look at the total expenditures under the farm bill the share of the total farm bill that will go to food stamps will rise and we already know and we hear from farmers and others who say close to 80% of the farm bill goes food stamps. well, under the current law, 77.8% goes to nutrition programs. under this bill, 78.9% will go to food stamps. so it will increase by 2%. they've singled out specific areas where they want to reform the program. it doesn't mean the overall amount of money that will go

down, it's not. it's going up, but the reforms are, i think, well called for. if your income and your assets are below the level that the congress has written into law to target the eligibility for food stamps you will not be hurt by this provision. we're going to do two things that allow people to get food stamps even if they don't meet those target. one called categorical will eligibility, where you are automatically qualified if you meet some other eligibility requirement and a so-called broad based eligibility that includes a household, tenant-funded brochure. you get that brochure in the mail you are eligible to food stamps or access to an 800-number hotline. you get more food stamps. it has nothing to do with your

income and nothing to do with your assetes that you have which are set in the law and are not changes, as i understand it, in this law. in addition, if you get your state and i understand that a great many states participate and if your state gives you a dollar or $5 of heating assistance program money which, by the way, is also funded by the federal government, they can then make you eligible for $100 or more of food stamp funds just by giving you that additional dollar or additional $5. those two changes constitute well over 95% of the savings that we're achieving in the food stamp program in this farm bill. the categorical eligibility change will save $11.5 billion over ten years where if they're eligible and if they are and

they did go in and get food stamps and this won't change that. the same thing for the live change. that will save $4.5 billion of the $16 billion in savings under this bill and then there's an additional, a third area that saves $480 million and that basically eliminates what are called state performance bonuses. the states are responsible for administering the snap program and it's their duty to process application in a timely manner and ensure households receive the accurate amount of snap benefits and make certain the program is administered in the most effective and efficient manner. while it might be nice incentive and it's hard to justify awarding state bonuses on the taxpayer dime on this economic climate where we will spend this year for the fourth year in a row more than $1 trillion, more than this government takes in. we're not going to disqualify anybody who meets the income and

standards who meet the asset standards, but we are going take people off the rolls who are given an added benefit or made eligible simply because of being eligible for something else. if you need food stamps you should meet the criteria, and i would say that these savings are very, very legitimate. we're going to spend over the next ten years almost $800 billion on food stamps. we do not need to spend it this $16 billion and this modest 2% or less than 2% cut in the food stamp program and i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. >> the gentleman yields back the balance of his time as the gentle lady from alabama, miss sewell seek recognition? >> i do, mr. chairman. i seek to strike the last word. >> the gentle lady is recognized for five minutes. >> today i'm speaking for low-income women across the

nation. this farm bill is drafted before the agriculture committee will have devastating impact and 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 workin