in this nation that play by the rules. there are people in this nation that have done everything that we've asked them to do. so it is our obligation in this nation, as its leaders, to find those opportunities for people to live and continue the type life they've had in the american way and i am just here to say that i will continue to fight for the less fortunate because i will not turn my back on any american that wants to play by the rules and have done what we've said in this nation you need to do, the land of the free and the home of the brave, that still should mean something. mr. speaker, i yield back. mr. jeffries: i thank the gentleman for his thoughtful observations and for focusing on the need to re-authorize unemployment benefits for the

long-term unemployed across america. it has been a myth that has been put forth and those who seek to undermine this program that individuals who are receiving unemployment assistance who have been unemployed for 27 weeks or more, simply are sitting home looking to collect a check without going out and actively searching for employment. nothing can be further from the truth. the reality is, and this is connected to the dynamic around income inequality that we are discussing here today, is that for every 2.8 million, 2.9 million americans who are unemployed looking for a job, there is only one job that exists. so obviously, we need to do more in this country collectively to generate employment as opposed

to exploiting good middle-class jobs to other parts of the world and not seeing any reciprocal economic benefit in return. i'm thankful that i have been joined by the co-anchor of the c.b.c. special order, someone whose very district, representing urban parts of clark county and las vegas as well as rural parts of nevada can speak to the issue quite clearly that income inequality and poverty in america is not simply an urban issue or a rural issue, it impacts all of america. and we are thankful in the congress that he has been a strong champion for his district and for these issues that are impacting people a across the country and let me yield to my good friend, representative horsford. mr. horsford: i thank my good friend, strong advocate for the

good people in new york as well as representing the interests of all americans and your leadership in co-anchoring this hour on behalf of the congressional black caucus where we bring the issues that most americans want this congress to focus onto the floor of the house of representatives. and i would like to thank you for anchoring this hour and to all of our colleagues who have come to the floor tonight to speak. you know, mr. speaker, tomorrow night, this chamber will be packed. and seat will be filled every seat in the chamber will .ave representatives here millions upon millions of americans will be listening to our president in and his state

of union and i'm looking forward to his remarks as we continue to move our country forward. but tonight, we come here to gather, to discuss income inequality and what congress can do in working with the president to move some of these important legislative issues forward on behalf of the constituents that we represent and millions of americans across our great nation. and there is no easy answer for solving the problem of income inequality or economic mobility, and i thank the gentleman from new york for talking about how our various districts are really representative of this issue of income inequality. in my home district of nevada, the 4th district, we have been hit harder than most by higher unemployment, higher home foreclosures, which have led to

economic loss. and i want to talk about some of that tonight, because when we talk about issues of income inequality and economic mobility, it is for all incomes, not just for select few. it's for the people in rural america as well as urban america and these are issues that are important to all of us. now although we cannot expect congress to solve for each person's economic struggle, we can certainly expect our members of congress not to target those who are struggling to make ends meet, especially by balancing a budget on their backs. as of december 28, this past year, congress did just that unfortunately. and now 1.6 million americans have lost crucial unemployment insurance benefits. today, nearly 21,000 citizens of

nevada in my state have been cut off from unemployment benefits. and this is personal. as my colleague from new jersey talked about, for those who understand what it means to be unemployed, for those of us who understand the fact that people are putting in resume after resume, day after day, week after week and hits a person to their core being unemployed. and to add insult to injury, this congress failed to do its job. and so it's unconscionable to assume that those who are looking for work are lazy or that they want to somehow stay unemployed. mr. speaker, the constituents that i have spoken to in my district at the work centers who continue to put their resume in, they want to be employed. but it's one thing to have our colleagues on the other side

believe that the government should not intervene in helping to close the gap between the rich and poor, but is absolutely wrong to cut critical social safety nets that have been in place for decades, regardless of party, in an effort to reduce spending while maintaining corporate subsidies and tax breaks for the very rich. d mr. speaker, it is morally outrageous to target those who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. but it is even worse to see this happen when we have millions of dollars in tax subsidies toll millionaires and major industry. what is more, the difference between the top and the bottom of the economic ladder is greater than ever before. and climbing this ladder is also becoming increasingly difficult.

recently, a harvard economist und that those -- found that those who are our parents and how much our parents earned are more consequential today than ever before. the doctor identified five key factors that are heavily correlated with economic mobility and income inequality. first, segregation. second is inequality. third is quality of our public school systems. fourth is social and civic engagement. and fifth is family structure. and for decades, low-income workers have seen their wages frozen while the profits of the nation's wealthiest americans have continued to explode. now i have nothing against

successful people. people who go out and put their ingenuity to work and entrepreneurship to work and become successful. but i also believe that it's important for this congress to also focus on the needs of those who are part of the middle class d those who have fallen into poverty who want to be part of that middle class. it is time that congress acted to address the minimum wage crisis in our country. $7.25, which is the federal minimum wage, is not a living wage in today's america. and we need to recognize that. we need to recognize that the fair minimum wage act of 2013, the bill that's been introduced by the house democratic colleagues, representative george miller of california and in the senate by senator tom

harkin of iowa, is the type of commonsense legislation that a majority of americans expect this congress to focus on. gradly increasing the federal -- gradually increasing the federal minimum wage from $7.25 an hour 2016, in an hour by three 95-cent installments, is the right economic step to take for our country and the people that we represent. $10.10 is the inflation adjusted value of the minimum wage compared to what it was in the 1960's. raising the tips' minimum wage from $2.13 to $7.07. let's talk about who these people are that we are fighting

to increase the wage for. first, these are low-wage workers who will benefit from an increase in the minimum wage and more likely to work full-time. 55% of those who are on minimum wage today work full-time. 56% of those on minimum wage today, mr. speaker, are women. and 80% are adults who are at least 20 years of age. but those are not the only groups that would benefit from the minimum wage. increasing the minimum wage would also generate some $22 billion in economic activity and jobse an additional 85,000 nationwide, contrary to what republicans and some super pacs may want the american people to believe. raising the minimum wage cre eighths jobs and lifts people

out of poverty. it would raise 4.6 million americans out of poverty and put average of 1 -- $1,700 back to the pockets back to our lowest-waged workers. 39,000 people, 20% of our state's children, would be directly or indirectly affected by an increase in the minimum wage. raidsing the minimum wage would actually take pressure off of our government by allowing wages to be vr sustaining to help them provide for themselves and their families rather than relying on federal assistance to take care of themselves. these are the growing inaqualities that we are here to talk about, mr. speaker. and one of the greatest threats to our nation's future is this

issue of growing income inequality. our country's greatness was built on the foundation of the world's most prosperous middle class and on a society where those who worked hard had the opportunity to rise on that economic ladder of opportunity. from thenot become far truth over the last 30 years, but particularly during the recovery from the great recession. and before i turn the time back over to my colleague and engage in a little bit of back-and- forth. i would like to look at this graph, because it charts our country's various recessions, depressions and our subsequent recovery. in the great depression, everyone suffered. it devastated everyone in the economy regardless of income. and in the following years when our economy started to grow

again, all levels of income recovered at approximately the same rate that had declined. the top 1%'s share of the recovery was only about 28% of the time. during the clinton expansion years, in the 1990's, it was an economic boon for all levels of income. and although the top 1% held 45% of that growth, it was still a shared economic prosperity. moving ahead to the bush expansion after the 2001 recession, you can see more of the growth being concentrated in the top 1% at 65%. and when the recession of 2007 to 2009 came about, only 49% of the loss belonged to the 1%. despite the massive gains that had accrued during the bush

expansion. so this is not the type of economic system that we want for our country where the wealthiest and the tinues to grow nation's middle class shrinks and suffers. and that's what we are here to talk about tonight. i thank the gentleman from new york for yielding time. and i yield back. . . mr. jeffries: i thank the distinguished gentleman from nevada for that very precise and comprehensive analysis that was given today on the house floor and there were several important point us that raised that i'd like to elaborate on and perhaps have a follow-up discussion. one of the issues that you discussed relates to the failure of the economic expansion, as well as the recoveries that have taken

place, increasingly over the last several decades to benefit in any proportional way people in the middle class and those who aspire to be part of the middle class. and this has been a trend that we've seen for the last 30-plus years, it's been particularly pronounced in the five years or so since the economy collapsed in 2008. and when we look at the recovery, i mentioned earlier today that it's a particularly schizophrenic, inconsistent one, because we know that the stock market is way up, corporate profits are way up, c.e.o. compensation is way up, the productivity of the american worker is way up. but middle class wage as remain stagnant. now, why is that a problem? this chart illustrates the fact

that essentially since 1950 the productivity of the american worker, our ability as workers throughout this country to produce more in a more efficient fashion, costing less in time and resources has consistently increased, exponentially increased the productivity of the american worker. but essentially over the last -plus years or so, wages connected to that output of the american worker have remained flat. so what does that mean? that essentially means that while the american worker is far more efficient and effective in doing their job and being more productive, that the profits and the output generated by the american

gone to the ot employees, it's gone to the employer and a very small percentage of individuals. and so when we talk about income inequality, we're not saying that we have a problem with success. we're saying everyone should benefit from the success that the american worker has created. as opposed to just a small number of individuals. the so-called job creators, we're thankful for their ingenuity and for their effort, but the reality is the productivity of the american worker has increased yet the middle class has not benefited. , fact, between 1978 and 2001 c.e.o. compensation has , c.e.o. 876%

compensation. between 1978 and 2001. and what's happened? as it relates to compensation for the average american worker during that same time period, it's increased 5.4%. that's a shameful difference, one that we should not tolerate in this great country. the other observation that my distinguished colleague made related to the fact that if we increase the minimum wage, it will not just benefit millions of americans by lifting them out of poverty, why in the world would we want a society where people work full time throughout an entire year, yet find themselves in poverty? that makes no sense. but increasing the minimum wage benefits the economy, as my colleague indicated, because it

increases consumer demand, it increases -- an increase in consumer demand leads to economic growth. an increase in economic growth leads to additional job creation and everybody benefits. it's a commonsense solution. so let me now turn to my colleague from nevada for some parting thoughts and i appreciate as always your comprehensive analysis and observation. mr. horsford: i appreciate yours. just to reinforce the point you were making, this chart illustrates the very facts of the matter. why is it ok that wall street profits are at record highs over the last three years, since 2009, at 720%, but it's not ok to increase the minimum wage for millions upon millions of americans who are using that

minimum wage job to provide for themselves and their family? why is it ok that the unemployment rate is over 102% during this period but it's not ok to increase the minimum wage for workers in this country? hy is it ok that c.e.o. pay is 185 times bigger than the average worker, according to the economic policy institute, but it is not ok to raise the nimum wage from $7.25, incrementally, to $10.10 in order to lift people out of poverty? and why is it ok that americans ' home equity has dropped 35% uring 2007 and 2009, thereby affecting the very income wealth that the majority of middle class americans did have , and yet not help to lift our

economy by raising the minimum wage? these are the questions that we would like to pose to our friends and colleagues on the other side. these are the questions that the american public expect this house of representatives to debate. and these are the issues that would really go to the crux of closing the income inequality and moving economic mobility forward in this country. i look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues on these and other measures. we've introduced legislation to increase the minimum wage, to extends unemployment insurance benefits, to provide training to workers to move into high-growth sectors. and to invest in our infrastructure to create the type of jobs that our country desperately needs. but we need our colleagues on the other side to work with us and our president to move these

legislative proposals forward and to stop the continued obstructionism that has plagued this congress for far too long. i yield back the remainer time to my colleague. mr. jeffries: i thank -- the remaining time to my colleague. mr. jeffries: i thank my colleague. income inequality is a threat to our economy and the integrity of our democracy and we must do everything possible to right this wrong in america. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from connecticut, ms. delauro, for 30 minutes. ms. delauro: first let me say thank you to my colleagues who are leaving the floor, for your great work on the issue of wage stagnation and the inability for upward mobility for people

in this nation. and you've done a great service here tonight with laying out what the facts are and what we need to do is to be able to increase people's income. and therefore give them the economic ability to take care of themselves and their families and have a road to economic security. so i thank you very, very much. i also want to say a thank you to my colleague from rhode island, congressman cicilline, who will join me in this 30-minute special order for tonight. tonight i want to talk about the severe and immoral cuts being made to antihunger and nutrition programs. and particularly the continuation of devastating food stamp cuts being made in the proposed conference farm bill. we've said here, food stamps, food stamps are an economic

safety net. as written, the farm bill would force 850,000 households, 1.7 million men, women, children, veterans, across america to go hungry. even while wealthy agri-businesses continue to get generous crop subsidies. low-income seniors, working-poor families with children and individuals with disabilities would be particularly impacted by the cruel cuts in this bill. meanwhile, the conference has s cided to reopen the loophole that the house of representatives on a bipartisan way closed. and those loopholes, as they reopen them, will make sure that millionaires and billionaires are getting crop subsidies. one has to ask the question,

who are we working for here? in effect, this is reverse robin hood legislation. it steals food from the poor to help pay crop subsidies to the rich. and when i see members supporting the immoral cuts in this legislation, mr. speaker, i have to wonder if some people in this institution have really lost their perspective and understand why we are here and what our moral responsibility is. across this country, this great country, nearly 50 million americans, including over 16 million children, are struggling with hunger right now. think for a moment about what that means. in 1974 a writer in "time" magazine explained it this way and i quote, the victim of starvation burns up his own body fat, muscles and tissues for fuel.

his body quite literally consumes itself and deteriorates rapidly. the kidneys, liver and -- often seize to function properly. a shortage of carbohydrates play a vital role in brain chemistry. confusion set in so that starvation victims often seem unaware of their plight, end quote. that's what we're talking about here. hunger is agonizing. it is a curse. we are talking about men and women experiencing real physical torment. children who cannot concentrate in school because all they can think about is food. seniors who are forced to decide in this winter season, this polar vortex that we talked about, whether or not they will go hungry or whether or not they will go cold. this is a problem all across this land. the americans going hungry here

in the land of plenty. in my connecticut district, nearly one in seven households are not sure if they can afford enough food to feed their families. in mississippi 24.5% suffer food hardship. that is nearly one in four people. in west virginia and kentucky, 22%. one in five people suffer food hardships in ohio, nearly 20%. and in california, just over 19%. the continued existence of hunger in america is a disgrace. and quite frankly an indictment of this institution. as the late senator george mcgovern, a champion against hunger, wrote, and i quote, the earth has enough knowledge and resources to eradicate this ancient scourge. hunger has plagued the world for thousands of years. by ending it as a great moral -- but ends it is a great moral

imperative -- but end ending it is a great more -- but ending it is a great moral imperative now more than ever before. because now humanity has the instruments at hand to defeat this cruel enemy at a very reasonable cost. we have the ability to provide food for all within the next three decades. end quote. or as president john f. kennedy put it, and quote, we have the ability, we have the means and we have the capacity to eliminate hunger from the face of the earth. we need only the will. mr. speaker, that will seems to be lacking in the congress right now. instead of working to end hunger for good, this farm bill takes food from the plates of 1.7 million americans. and, again, we are talking about seniors, veterans,

children, families who are playing by the rules and many of whom are working full time all the time. the farm bill, this one, that is being proposed would force these americans to go hungry and at the same time the conference, the bill, has chosen against the will of the house and the senate to reopen loopholes and strip out payment limits so that millionaires and wealthy agri-businesses can continue to get handouts. it is unconscionable and in violation of the congressional rule that provisions passed by both bodies should not be changed. the conference more than doubled the annual dollars on primary payments. they said that you will now get

$50,000 for a primary payment for your commodity. we are now going to raise that to $125,000. that loophole was closed. they then re-opened the loophole closed in the house and senate that allows large wealthy farmers to collect far, far more than that no, ma'amal payment limit and they did this while they cut $8.5 billion from food stamps. what's interesting, what's very interesting and cruel, if you will, that those folks who are in the upper income scale, the wealthiest of farmers, they don't have to have any income threshold or test to see how much they make before they qualify for these payments. they don't have to tell us about what assets they have before

they qualify for these payments. they don't -- we don't have a cap on the payments that we give them. these are millionaires. and yes, for food stamp recipients, we have an asset threshold, an income threshold. we say if you make so much money, you are not eligible for $1.40 per meal. you're not eligible. but if you are a millionaire, all bets are off. all bets are off. and you know, those folks at the top running, they are eating well. they are getting three quares a day. they are feeding their -- squares a day and they are feeding their kids and what we are going to do is take food away from food stamp recipients, men, women, seniors, children, veterans. where are the values of this great nation?

we have lost our way. we have lost our way. in the past, there has been a strong tradition of bipartisan in supporting nutrition. leaders like george mcgovern and from the right, like bob dole, came together to make a difference. senator dole called the egregious cut to food stamps, quote, an about-face in our progress fighting hunger. this is because food stamps is our country's most important effort to deal with hunger here at home and ensure that america cap families can put food on their family. they help 47 million americans and nearly half of them children and make a tremendous difference for the health and well-being. food stamps have been proven to improve low-income children's health and development and have a continuing positive influence into adulthood.

children's health watch, their research found that after collecting 14 years' worth of data that when families experience a loss or reduction in food stamp benefits, they are more likely to be food insecure, be in poor health and their children experience developmental delays relative to their peers. food stamps somewhere one of the lowest error rates of any government program. around 3.8%, that includes overpayments and underpayments. and i defile to go to any other agency, let's look at the crop insurance program and find out what their error rate is all about. a powerful positive impact on growth because food stamps feed not only the hungry but resources into the hands of family who will spend them right away. u.s. department of agriculture research shows that every $5 of federal food stamp benefits generates twice that in economic

activity. most importantly, of course, they are the right thing to do. 99% of food stamp recipients have incomes below the poverty line. it is the job of good government to help vulnerable families to get back on their feet. in the words of harry truman, quote, nothing is more important in our national life than the welfare of our children and proper nourishment comes first in attaining this welfare. and that is why, when he declared that, and i quote, the moment is at hand to put an end to hunger in america, richard nixon called for a significant expansion of the food stamp program, to, and i quote, provide families enough food stamps to provide a new trish neal diet. and this farm bill cuts deeply into food stamps and i ask again

how can you do this? food stamps have seen deep and dangerous cuts. if you look at the fridge in the picture i'm holding up, this represents where we should be in terms of access to food. but because of the recent expiration of the recovery act provisions, food stamps have already been cut by $5 billion next year, and they will be cut by $11 billion over the next three years. on november 1, 2013, snap benefits were reduced about $36 less for a family of four each month. this means, this means that a family of four that loses $36 or

16 meals a month in support. that's the difference between health and hunger. now this congress wants to enact nother $8.5 billion in cuts, meaning an additional $90 per month and that much more food taken away from 850,000 households. this is the proposed farm bill. snap cuts would result in 850,000 households, 1.7 million people losing almost $90 a month in monthly benefits. and already, far too many americans, the last few weeks of the month, this is what their fridge looks like. why would we put any more hardship on the most vulnerable families in our nation? families who are already battling food insecurity and

hunger. they will have an empty refrigerator. no one should go hungry due to food stamp cuts. however you cut it, this is a terrible policy. cutting food stamps will cause more hunger, health problems. this is a dereliction of our responsibility as members of congress and moral responsibility to help the least fortunate. at the u.s. conference of cagget bishops and i quote, we must form a circle of protection around the poor and vulnerable in our nation or in the words of pope francis, the scandal that people suffer from hunger must not paralyze us but push each and every one of us institutions, communities, government to eliminate this injustice. this farm bill takes us in the wrong direction. instead of helping to end hunger, it cuts food stamps by

choices .7 million and between food on the table or warmth and does this while preserving loopholes and maximizing handouts for wealthy farmers. we have to do better. i hope both parties will stand up against this misplaced priority in the farm bill and rekindle the strong bipartisan support that has existed for decades in wanting to end hunger in america. buzz aldrin once said if we can conquer space, we can conquer childhood hunger and we can. we can. this institution has the power, has the potential to make that change. we have the ability, we have the means and we have the capacity to eliminate hunger in america. we only need the will to do what's right. with that, i would thrike to ask

my colleague from -- i would like to ask my colleague from rhode island who is such a strong supporter of families in this nation and seen the ravages of families who have lost their unemployment benefits and what we intend to do, not only have they lost their unemployment benefits we want to make sure that would it would mean is that they are hungry and cold. i thank the gentleman from rhode island for being here tonight. rhode island mr. cicilline: i thank the gentlelady and i thank my good friend, the gentlelady from connecticut for her extraordinary work and for her incredible passion on this very, very important issue and for giving me the opportunity to speak on this serious issue tonight. madam speaker, the gentlelady from connecticut, has been a great champion for policies to fight hunger and protect a crucial safety net for our nation's most vulnerable

children and families. i stand with her against these devastating cuts to the snap program. you don't end hunger by cutting nutrition programs. you make it worse. we should be working together to find ways to end hunger in america. we can do that. this is the greatest country on earth. we should be certain that no man, woman or child in this country goes hungry. unfortunately, some of my colleagues filed the farm bill conference report that would be absolutely devastating to families struggling to get by. if i can for just a moment, i would like to walk through some of the cuts to the nutrition programs being proposed as part of this bill. in states like mine with cold winters, many working families already struggling to buy food face the additional burden of expensive monthly utility bills to heat their homes. faced with this reality, some parents are forced to decide what's more important for their

child, a good nutritious meal or warm home. and for decades now, the snap program has worked to provide additional benefits to struggling families taking both food insecurity and high heating and housing costs. in my home state of rhode island, individuals who receive nominal assistance through the low-income assistance energy program or liheap are eligible for additional assistance under snap. this policy called heat and eat, makes sense for two reasons. first, this kind of policy helps prevent some of our most vulnerable families from having to face the difficult choice between a warm home and a good meal. let's not forget these families are living in the worst kind of poverty, the poorest and most needy in our community and they face the real threat of hunger in a freezing home. the second reason this program is important is it makes both

programs more efficient and streamlines the application process. without this policy, the same family will be forced to navigate a maze of bureaucracies to access resources in a time of tremendous need. instead, under this policy, struggling families can access resources more easily and focus on the things that matter, of getting back on their feet, of finding work. in a time of limited federal resources for the poor, heat and eat helps. it helps states coordinate assistance programs and leverages funding from snap and family is heap so no faced with a difficult choice. this is not a loophole. this is a policy, an effective policy designed to address a real problem for families facing especially hard times. the bill in the conference rofert that was filed tonight cuts and undermines states'

efforts to coordinate food and heating assistance and will make the lives of our neediest families even more difficult. and i know many of my colleagues will think this is an easy pill to swallow. why? because it places the burden of nutrition programs on the backs of a smaller group of individuals in a limited number of states. only 16 states administer heat and eat programs primarily in cold weather states like rhode island and connecticut, and it's a cruel twist. my colleagues have decided to target cold-weather states right after many parts of the country faced record-breaking cold and incredibly high heating costs. according to the previous estimates, the nonpartisan congressional budget office said 850,000 households would see benefits cut by an average of $90 a month.

of course, many of the households affected by this cut will be low-income seniors, veterans, people with disabilities, children and the working poor. in total, this cut impacts 1.7 million people struggling to put food on the table and imposes all of these cuts on only those families living in 16 states. now the same people that are proposing these cuts in nutrition programs are more than happy to provide agricultural companies with extremely generous subsidies to purchase crop insurance and spend $40 billion over the next 10 years on commodity programs. they are happy to undermine payment reform like limits on total commodity for personnel on programs that were approved by congress last june and could give subsidies to the wealthiest farmers. one of the architects made the

case by saying, and i quote, the safety net still has to exist, end quote. apparently to protect the safety net, the wealthiest farmers, children and families in 16 states are forced to struggle even harder to put food on the table. it's a sad day in this country when the safety net for wealthy farmers is more important than the safety net for hungry families. i thank the gentlelady for all of the work that she's done and for the information she just shared about how effective and important this program is and i just want to end with two quotes from important religious groups who have spoken to this issue that i hope my colleagues will hear and rethink this decision and reject this proposal and speak to our values as a country. . .

as you determine the policies and appropriations for the supplemental nutrition assistance program, please maintain this vital program at or near its current level of funding and refrain from enacting policies that could damage our most vulnerable citizens. end quote. and the u.s. catholic bishops said, and i quote, how the house chooses to address our nation's hunger and nutrition programs will have profound human and moral consequences, end quote. and i hope we will all hear those words and do what is right for families, will speak to our values as a country, and protect those most in need from any additional cuts that will adversely impact their families and their ability to feed themselves. i thank the gentlelady for yielding and i yield back. ms. delauro: i can't thank the gentleman enough for your eloquence and what clarity you brought to the discussion around the connection between

the low-income energy assistance program and the food stamp program and take it out of the receipt am of what -- realm of what people are trying to do, demean it and talk it as a scheme or loophole, -- about it as a scheme or loophole, none of which are true. we can talk about schemes and loopholes in this bill, but they don't apply with the food stamp beneficiaries. i want to talk about the point you made about the safety net. the farm bill, and i had the opportunity to work in 2008 on the farm bill, particularly the nutrition piece, the farm bill halls been a safety net for -- bill has always been a safety net for farmers and for those who are the beneficiaries of the nutrition program. that's what the link that was established so the benefits would go nationwide, not to a particular region of the country, not to a particular population, but a safety net so

that we could make sure that people in bad times, in difficult times could be able to sustain themselves. that is what's been broken apart here. with this farm bill. d so the point is that where the farm bill conferees will say that they're cutting back on these payments to farmers, what they have done is to create a series of other programs where these folks can make themselves whole through crop insurance, through putting more farm managers on the land and no restrictions as to how many you can put at $125,000 a pop. so they found ways in terms of which they make these folks whole. the only beneficiaries in the farm bill who have no place to go when you cut back on that $90 a month -- -- a month are

the food stamp recipients. so you have yanked the safety net away from them and you've done it to benefit the wealthiest farm interests in the nation. it is wrong and that bipartisan support we had in the past for a safety net is what created strength and i'm sad to tell you that that that has been rent asunder -- that that has been rent asunder and we cannot allow at that to happen. i will encourage my colleagues and i know that you will that we will defeat this effort to leave people without suftnence in this nation. -- suftnence in this nation. i thank -- sustenance in this nation. i thank the gentleman for his time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the hou

bill?illfarm

>> they landed in the house and roles sometime after 630. procedures will be set. it will be voted on in the house by wednesday morning. house republicans were going to break on wednesday afternoon. >> what are some of the issues you will be grappling with out at the retreat? talk.re is a lot of we want to make that a big issue and hold out for some concessions.

the announcement by speaker boehner. >> we do not know. the notion that there could be immigration reform could create some clouds gathering. >> he is covering the house for us. his twitter handle is house in session. thank you for joining us. a preview of the state of the union address.

we will hear from jason from utah. senatorill hear from bernie sanders of vermont. we will also get calls, tweets, and facebook can't -- comments. that will be live on c-span. >> as we stabilize the financial steps to save as many jobs as possible to help americans. we made health insurance 65% cheaper. we passed 25 different tax cuts. we cut taxes. we cut taxes for 95% of working

families. [applause] we cut taxes for people trying to care for their children. we cut taxes for 8 million americans paying for college. our preview program takes .lace live with the president we will be getting your reaction by phone, facebook, and twitter. the state of the union live on c-span, c-span radio, and c-span.org. visiting hundreds of schools and communities nationwide and raising awareness. the c-span bus continues on the road.

road.or us on the this winter university students will be there as we hit the road for the big conference tour. we were putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events, and we have gavel to gavel coverage. we are c-span, created 35 years ago and funded by your local satellite provider. follow us on twitter. c-span,p tonight on first ladies features hillary clinton.

that is followed by a discussion >> the future is not something that is out there waiting to happen to us. the future is something that we make.