Much of the data about the work requirement's impact on hunger does not exist.

we have to be clear, and that is why I want the data. So it isn't politically driven, it is data driven.

I spend a lot of time, really, talking about the conditions in New Mexico, which, given your research, and some of your--particularly, Dr. Chilton, some references that there are concerns about states like New Mexico, who have had waivers…

SNAP is a food program, not a jobs program.

the issue of hunger ought to be a bigger deal in this Congress than it is.

The majority of SNAP recipients, who are able to work, do work.

Cutting them off from SNAP only makes hunger worse.

SNAP in and of itself is not a jobs program; it is a food program.

I don't think we should lessen our commitment to food and nutrition programs, and divert those monies to someplace else.

SNAP can't do it all, but what it is supposed to do, which is to make sure that people don't go hungry in this country, I think it needs to do it better.

I encourage this Committee to remember that there are states who--even without waivers, and exceptions, and changes have not done the jobs that we intend.

What we need is a clearinghouse to be able to highlight best practices, but we also need to talk very candidly about ways that we can sew up some of the holes in the social safety net.

SNAP benefits processing has fallen by 23 percent, and this is a design as part of reforming the program: 20,000 lost their food benefits.

Those kinds of incentives can be very counter-productive, and create exactly the opposite intent, of innovation and productive reform.

It is still deplorable that my constituents face hunger every single day.

I really care about and believe in, as effective as possible in meeting its goals--and doing what it ought to do, which is help this country eradicate hunger.

We should be rewarding and incentivizing those states that eradicate hunger.

SNAP works. SNAP is helping millions of struggling families around the county put food on the table.