in the title i funding as is. that would be our biggest change. we have done work on the disaster relief program. that would be a few fingerprints on it as well. the: various members of the house and senate agriculture committee's. joining us now is congressman jim mcgovern. the represents the second district of massachusetts, senior member of the house agriculture committee. what kind of agriculture and farming takes place in the second district? we have all kinds. we have over 2000 farms. dairy farms, farmers to grow vegetables. apple orchards. you name it. a lot of people don't appreciate agriculture is a large part of the massachusetts economy, but it is. we have small and medium-sized farms but they are essential to the economy. i am proud to support them. host: what is happening at those

farms and orchards amidst the tariffs dispute between the president and various trade partners? guest: it is around the country. farmers are besides themselves. they don't know what the hell president is doing. these tariffs are adversely impacting our economy and our agricultural economy. the president is now talking about $12 billion bailout. he created this problem. we want to help our farmers, but maybe a better trade policy might be more appropriate than having to do $12 billion bailouts. you can reinvest that in the agricultural economy to help dairy farmers who are struggling in the northeast. they could use a little extra help. you can use that to help farms in transition. you can use that money to

support more fresh fruits and vegetables. to helpuse that money alleviate the hunger problem in this country, which unfortunately the house farm bill, has written, makes it worse -- as written makes it worse. at some point the grown-ups on capitol hill and those on the republican side have to stand up to this president and say enough is enough. host: quite the believe it is a bailout targeted at farmers? other industries have been impacted by the rising tariffs around the globe. guest: the other industries will be asking for help as well if the president does not change his ways. we have companies now that are saying they want to move their operations overseas because these tariffs are making it financially difficult to operate in the u.s. look at what's happening with harley davidson for example.

this is always self-inflicted went by this president who doesn't have any clue what he is doing. he likes to talk tough and think he is the emperor of the world, and the bottom line is people are not responding. we are at this point where farmers are being hurt, manufacturers are being hurt. we are now starting to hear from people across this country how they are being adversely impacted. again, congress needs to tell the president enough is enough and republicans have to have the spine to stand up to this president who is clearly wrong. they all know he is wrong on this. unfortunately they are content to go along. host: we have been having this conversation this morning. questions about this $12 billion. bobby asks, how long will $12 billion last? what is next? guest: the first i heard about

the full billion dollars was last night. -- $12 billion was last night. he came up with this idea because he is starting to hear arem some of the people who advocates of agriculture, members of congress who are saying i have constituents that are being hurt. do something. you need to change course. this president does not like to admit he is wrong so we came up with this idea. we will throw $12 billion at the problem. i don't think that this is not a l -- this is not a long-term solution. we have some legitimate issues with the trade partners. china in particular has not been a fair trading partner. we need to address those issues. there is a right way to address those issues and come up with a solution involving other countries, involving working with other people. and then there is a wrong way,

the way the president is approaching this like a bulldozer. host: how do you as a member of congress ensure there is not fraud, waste and abuse? guest: maybe there will be some oversight hearings. this just came out of the blue last night. i don't know specifically what the president's plan is. i just know he throughout a number of $12 billion. i'm not sure how it will be just generated or with the oversight -- how it will be distributed or with the oversight will be. the republicans have done a lousy job and oversight. they don't like to be in check on this president and let him get away with anything. there is a lot of concern here. where is this money going? how will it help? what is the long-term plan? enough of this craziness. we need to start behaving sensibly and thoughtfully when it comes to trade, and when it comes to supporting our farmers. farmers in this country deserves

our support. they work hard. they produce food. we all need food. not to be creating problems and trying to find ways to alleviate it in the short term but we have no long-term solution. we ought to have a farm bill past that helps our farmers, that addresses issues like food insecurity in this country. the farm bill the house passed doesn't do anything for a lot of farmers in this country. by the way, increases hunger. we have 42 million people that are food insecure or hungry belly of a farm bill that will make the problem worse. i hope in a conference committee we can resolve those differences so we can come out more on the senate side. host: what is the farm bill make that problem worse? guest: they cut snap, the premier antihunger program. they cut benefits by $23

billion. they throw millions of people off the program. they throw millions of young children off the free breakfast and lunch programs. it is a cruel document. the house agriculture committee we did 23 hearings on nutrition programs. none of those hearings -- none of the people who testified, the majority were republican, none suggested anything like what is in the house bill. it is a disgrace. it shows a callousness that quite frankly is disgusting. one of the things i will try to do is fight for nutrition title that does not increase hunger. the senate has a better approach to this. they don't cut the benefits of the house does. the senate bill does not betray our values. i think that is where we need to go. host: we had a caller who said she sees a lot of fraud, specifically in the snap program. she thinks they should start all

over. can you talk about that? guest: let me say to the caller i hear that all the time from people. usually when i follow-up it is not true. here is the reality, and this is the usda that will tell you this. snap is subject to many audits and gao oversight reports, but it is one of the most effective federal programs we have with one of the lowest fraud and error rates. compare that to the pentagon and all the waste and abuse and the cost overruns in the pentagon. the fact of the matter is snap works. by the way, the average benefit is about $1.40 per person per meal. people can't live on that. that is why food banks will tell you in the middle of the month they are inundated with people because they have run out of money to buy groceries for their families. this is an effectively run program. it is constantly being reviewed.

it has a very low error rate. even this administration will concede that. it is quite frankly underfunded. -- i't know how people can think the benefits are too low. we should be talking about expanding the program and making it better. this is the united states of america. we are the richest country in the history of the world. we have over 40 million people who were food insecure or hungry. i am ashamed of that fact. we ought to be able to do better. i wish we would stop beating up on poor people. i wish we would stop creating farm bill's that are cruel documents, like we did in the house. problems.olve these i don't know when it became a radical idea to end hunger in america, but in this congress under this republican leadership and with this president in the white house it is a controversial notion to solve this problem. hunger costs us a great deal.

kid to go to school hungry don't learn. the cost in terms of avoidable medical care is monumental. we just did a study in massachusetts, the greater boston food bank and children's talking about the cost of hunger in massachusetts alone. it was a figure of $2.4 billion. that is $2.4 billion for your spending on avoidable health care cost, lost productivity in the workplace. that would be better spent rebuilding our infrastructure were supporting our farmers. we need to do better. it is frustrating that we have a congress that is more interested in throwing red meat at their right-wing base than solving this problem. enough beating up on four people, enough scapegoating -- beating up on poor people,

enough scapegoating. host: i have heard you say in the past this is a committee that has generally work in a bipartisan way but it is not happening in this congress. why is that? guest: you have to ask the republicans. this was a shock to me. bills past agriculture have had bipartisan support. even though we had bills i cannot support because i had some disagreements with, i have never criticized the process. this bill was written mostly in secret. the nutrition title, i don't even know where it came from. nobody will take responsibility for saying they wrote it. i don't know if they came from the heritage foundation or the white house or some other writing ink tank -- right wing think tank. there was no discussion with democrats about what they were proposing to do. the first time i saw the nutrition title of the farm bill, and i'm the ranking

democrat, was when they released it. that is not bipartisanship. by the way, a lousy process usually results in a lousy bill. and the a lousy process house version is a lousy bill. the senate, to their credit, work in a bipartisan way and came up with something i think democrats and republicans can't support. i hope -- republicans can support. i hope some of the egregious provisions are put aside because they are terrible and not good for farmers in people who are struggling in poverty. host:we take our viewers back uo capitol hill to the senate side of capitol hill. we joined by senator steve daines of montana, member of the senate's agriculture, and forestry commission. farmers?on to t: