that's hardball for now, thanks for being with us. "all in" with chris hayes starts right now. good evening from new york, i'm chris hayes, thank you for joining us. tonight on all in, if you think i'm the only one who believes that immigration reform is the single biggest policy priority of president obama's second term, well, then wait until i show you the circus on the capitol lawn today. this 66-year-old man has been arrested and charged with drug trafficking in south carolina, his story is proof that criminalization of marijuana is well passed ridiculous. plus, yes right wingers people are going hungry in america, and the gop's jihad on those in need gets uglier every single day. we begin tonight with house speaker john boehner's ashtray. this is not an actual photo of john boehner's ashtray, i'm guessing this is what john

boehner's ashtray looks like right now, because he has a heck of a lot of reasons to chain smoke today. starting with the scene outside his capitol window. >> we're having this press conference outside the halls of congress because as congressman steve king has said, we haven't had much of a discussion yet inside the halls of congress. >> john boehner and everyone else, you're the wiig party. if we stay together and hold true to true principles without regard to party, the republicans will go the way of the wiigs. and we win. >> you know, there's an old saying in texas and a lot of other places, fool me once, shame on you. fool me twice, shame on me. >> they lied to ronald reagan and they have been lying for the last six months to the american people, they're not going to get away with it this time. because we'll give you a chance to work. but we should not be giving a chance to be a taker.

>> there are people who are coming here who want to come to cut your lawn and have a better life. but there are people who want to cut your throat. >> amnesty costs a fortune. amnesty could also cost something more than just money. it could cost a nation. >> they want to cut your throat. glenn beck called you a wiig, john boehner, that is low. that was just a highlight real from steve king's six hour anti-amnesty rally on the lawn of the u.s. capitol. it's the thing we've been waiting to see in response to immigration reform. the same type of backlash we saw in 2007, which up until now, hasn't quite manifested itself. as we get closer to a vote, the vitriole is ramping up, and even people like marco rubio are not safe. >> you could ask -- well, senator rubio says they're going to have to pay --

>> that guy from the heritage foundation and the other activists and lawmakers know that marco rubio is not the point. this is why they're making such a big stink today. they have a different target. they understand that the entire thing of the immigration bill now lies in the hands of one man. not marco rubio, but john boehner. john boehner is the reason heritage action, the political wing of the foundation along with a number of other conservative groups sent a statement saying, liberal democrats control the senate. we should not hand then the keys as well. we encourage you to pass the haster rule that requires a majority of the majority to pass the legislation. it's named after dennis haster, is more of a principle, really. the house speaker will not bring

legislation to the floor that does not have support from the majority of his or her party. that's where this majority of the majority comes in. as the pressure builds up, john boehner finds himself with no way to release it. he's trapped and it's all now falling on his shoulders. here's what is going to happen. some form of the gang of eight immigration bill from the senate is likely to pass. there's no way that a majority of the house republican caucus is going to pass anything that looks remotely like comprehensive immigration reform. the only way immigration reform does pass is through john boehner. and to make that happen, he will have to break the haster rule and bring the immigration bill to the floor and pass it with mostly democratic votes. he's done this several times before, with the fiscal cliff vote which house republicans voted against. and the sandy relief bill which passed with only 49 republican votes.

last week when asked in he would bring the immigration bill to the floor boehner left the door open a little. >> i don't intend to bring an immigration bill to the floor, that violates what i and members of my party, what our principles are. and so, i continue to believe that you'll see strong bipartisan majorities for bills we bring to the floor. >> notice he didn't real it out really, but refers to principles and bipartisan majorities. yesterday, though, when asked almost the same thing, well, the door seemed a lot more closed. >> i don't see anyway of bringing an immigration bill to the floor, that doesn't have a majority support of republicans. >> well, there you go, john boehner, you have now painted yourself into a corner, haven't you? on one side, you have the republican donor class, the party elites of the chamber of commerce, and the business interests that actuallien watt this bill for economic reasons.

they're all saying if you want a chance at a viable national party, in the future, republicans cannot blow this opportunity at comprehensive immigration reform. they cannot be seen as the party that killed it. and at the same time, he's got a house caucus whose judiciary committee members last night, with very little fanfare passed a bill out of committee, that makes undocumented immigration a federal crime and allows local police officers to act like immigration enforcers, and whose members were outside the capitol today for both anti-amnesty rally with republican voters holding up signs about the irss and obama being a communist. john boehner already has two strikes against him with the caucus because of past indiscretions. if he breaks it again, he's probably dead as speaker or in his own words it's at the very least a possibility. >> representative warback said

bringing immigration reform to the floor -- >> -- do you think that's accurate? >> maybe. >> there was a lot of drama in that pause. john boehner is spacing a genuinely shakespearean choice before him. does he do the morally and politically right thing that could cost him his job, but will ensure huge benefits for millions of human beings and for the party he leads? or does he take the easy way out, self-destruct his party burn it all to the ground for another generation, so he can be speaker of the house for just a little while longer? joining me now is luis gutierrez, democrat from illinois. he's a member of the national hispanic caucus. congressman, my understanding is, you met with the one and only speaker john boehner today to talk to him about this issue,

how did the meeting go? >> the meeting went very well. as you probably suspect, boehner is not much of an ideologue. he's a practical man, and in the past, he's been very receptive to pro-immigration positions. much like paul ryan and other members of the republican party that might not be noted for their proimmigrant votes or better, i think express they're voting against other draconian measures in the past. it was a very good meeting. he welcomed us to his office. he was very kind to us and very generous with his time. and here's essentially what he said to us. he said, he's looking for a majority of the republican party to pass comprehensive immigration, but he's also looking to work toward a majority of democrats, in other words, he said to us, he wants to meld a majority. but he was particular about the majority of his own party. >> i think it's heartening and beautiful and inspiring that the

speaker thinks there's a possibility of a majority of the republican house caucus coming together around some kind of comprehensive immigration reform. you've been working on this for years, congressman. >> yes. >> am i wrong to think that is an absolute pipe dream, given the make-up of the current republican house caucus? >> i don't believe that there -- here's what i believe. i believe -- >> say the honest thing you were going to say first. >> yes, here's what i believe. i believe that the chairman of the judiciary committee can pass four or five different bills. he can do it with border control. they can do a series of bills, they can do e verify, here's what they can't do. they can't settle the problem of 11 million undocumented workers in america. they can't do that, unless they engage in a true bipartisan conversation of which i'm ready to help them resolve and save themselves from themselves. not because that's important,

but because i want to do what's right for america and an immigrant community that deserves our help at the moment. i don't believe the majority of them exist. >> for the path to citizenship. that seems to be the problem. democrats are not going to get behind anything that does not have that key cornerstone of path to citizenship, and that's exactly the sticking point nor, i believe, a majority of your colleagues in the house republican caucus. >> and they're stuck between a rock and a hard place, so i think here's what he did. he kept his -- he was very nice, he was congenial. he also kept his options open with us, to see how things are going to play out. and i just want to say that i'm going to continue to work with him. all of that we saw in front of the capitol, somebody has to act like an adult. and -- >> and that's the big question, is the speaker going to be that person right now? >> joining me now is frank van der sloot who sits on the board of directors.

it's wonderful to have you here. you are someone who is quite influential in the republican party. you're a very outspoken advocate of getting comprehensive immigration reform done. do you buy my analysis that it's going to come down to john boehner making this gutsy bold choice to get this thing to the floor? is that how you understand it? >> look, i don't -- chris, thank you for having me today, i don't know the make-up of the house specifically and personally, but i will tell you that the polls that we've seen say that the vast majority of republicans, in republican states or for immigration reform. and so the -- this poll by the public policy polling and harper polling, i don't know if you're familiar with it, done by a

bipartisan group. republicans for immigration reform and the national immigration forum. they tell us that in republican states, conservative states, poll of republicans only from -- depending on the state, 61%, to 78% of republicans are in favor of immigration reform. so if these congressmen are listening to their constituents. they will pitch in and help us. you may have some special interests that they're afraid of, i'm not sure. >> here's the problem, though. that polling, i've seen polling that's similar. there's an intensity gap which is to say, i've heard members of congress saying, our switchboards are getting lit up by people who are opposed to amnesty. there are the rallies on the capitol lawn. your job as i understand it, folks like you, who are committed, well known republicans is to try to put a thumb on the other scale. so my question is, when you're inside a room with a member of congress from the republican party who's on the fence on

this, what are you telling them, how are you trying to sell them on this? >> well, in the first place, i will tell you that every senator that i've talked to, and every congressman that i talked to is proimmigration reform, i'm not sure who the players are that you're talking about. but i will tell you this, i would appeal to just common sense and a little bit of compassion. this is not a democrat issue, it's not a republican issue. this is a humanitarian issue. and common sense would say that we solve this issue of 11 million undocumented hispanic only. there are others beside the hispanic kmoont. 11 million, and they're going to come. they're going to be here, and you can't blame them for being here. if you knew these people, i talked to many of them personally. i know many of them personally, if you hear their stories you would have compassion for them. and you would say they're good people, they love their families, they want to be in a

good country where they have good jobs, some of them want to come and work here and go home, they want to do that legally, we should give them the opportunity. >> you're saying that to me, and i completely agree with you, there was a rally on the capital lawn today where a guy got up with a microphone saying, these people want to cut your throat. that's the rhetoric that a lot of the people that are in the base of the republican party are hearing from their leadership. >> i don't think they're hearing that from the leadership at all. i don't think that's coming from the republican leadership at all. i haven't heard it, and i think i'm pretty well connected. you're hearing that from radical groups that lack common sense, that are drinking somebody's kool-aid, certainly not the kool-aid from the republican party. i do not believe the vast majority of the republicans believe that are saying that or telling the truth. >> i hope that's true, and i hope it manifests itself in the house of representatives, i'd love to have you back to talk about it again. i know you're a real key player. frank vandershoot.

a 66-year-old man cares for his sick wife of 40 years gets arrested for it and faces ten years in prison. that's coming up. my heart starting racing. i honestly never thought that someone would try to enter into my home without my permission. when i arrived at the residence, to my surprise, the officers had already received a call from adt and had gotten there and apprehended the suspect. knowing later that this intruder had a knife -- it just made me think of how lucky i was to have adt. [ male announcer ] when it's your family, trust adt fast response monitoring to help protect against burglary, fire, and high levels of carbon monoxide. when seconds count, the experience of adt matters. now get adt starting at just $99 with 24/7 protection just over $1 a day, plus a money-back guarantee. manage your home remotely with adt pulse. even keep an eye on your kids. the person who took the call from adt

saved my home, my possessions, and he might have saved my life. [ male announcer ] get adt for as little as $99 and save a lot more than money. call or click today.

why we need a cease-fire on the war on marijuana. the average benefit of $4.50 per day is curby. that's coming up. smoothes, lifts, defies? red jars are all the same right? wrong! you need three uses of a $15 cream to equal the moisturizing power of one use of regenerist microsculpting cream. seems not all red jars are created equal. olay regenerist. seems not all red jars are created equal. so wof the house?hink it's got a great kitchen, but did you see the school rating? oh, you're right. hey babe, i got to go. bye daddy! ...but what about when my parents visit? ok. i just love this one... and it's next to a park

i love it i love it too. here's our new house... daddy! you're not just looking for a house. you're looking for a place for your life to happen. zillow i was reading the story of a

66-year-old man who was arrested for drug trafficking, because he was caught growing marijuana plants for his sick wife. it helps her eat and sleep better. the story seemed like a classic case of how our laws have not caught up with the society that now largely favors the legalization of marijuana. especially for medicinal use. then we noticed that the suspect whose mugshot you see here was busted after 137 plants were confiscated from his property. we thought, okay, wait a second, with those plants maybe there was something more to this drug trafficking charge. 137 plants must look like something like this, right? or even something like this. lots and lots of pot. but the very helpful public information officer, sergeant robert mcintosh said the 100 plus plants were three pots, in various stages of development,

so possibly three of these. >> sergeant mcintosh informed us there was no evidence mr. peters was selling the pot or making a profit. it looks like what peters says it is, he was growing plants in order to provide comfort for his wife, who is suffering from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. this dangerous criminal has been taken down. after someone, a guest or a neighbor alerted the sheriff's office about the plants, police went to the 66-year-old man's residence and conducted a knock and talk, and mr. peters was immediately cooperative and forthcoming. he invited the officers in and directed them to the direction of the marijuana. he then served up coffee while the officers went and gathered the pot plants. a time was set whereby mr. peters would turn himself in which he did, after arranging for a caregiver to come look after his sick wife. peters was booked for drug trafficking, because the number of plants exceeded 100 and he

was released the same day. despite the implicit acknowledge by police that mr. peters is not a dangerous criminal, he could face up to 10 years in prison or a fine of up to $25,000 or both. you have to wonder, why are we doing this? look at the polling. look at this elderly man no one is hurting anyone, and there are scores of other arrests like that of mr. peters who told a reporter, i have a moral obligation to make my wife as comfortable as possible. joining me now is ryan grim reporter for the huffington post, this is your can't on drugs. ryan, i thought -- was so taken with the story, because it seemed to perfectly embody the madness of the war on drugs, this guy's not doing anything, here's the other twist to this, south carolina has medicinal marijuana, which they passed all the way back in 1980, you just have to get it from the department of health and environmental control which has

never distributed the drug. >> well, i wrote a book about this, and i didn't know that south carolina had a medical marijuana law. it's so absurd, maybe what he should have done is donated his plants to the south carolina department of health and then had the department of health donate them right back to him i mean, why people in south carolina would want to use their tax dollars or anyone in the united states would want to use their tax dollars to take this man away from his sick wife and put him in prison. in michigan a man was arrested who had a kidney and pancreas transplant. he was growing medical marijuana for himself. the government has sent him to the same prison where tsarnaev is. >> is that really true? >> it is true. at first they weren't going to do that, despite the judge recommending that he go to a federal hospital instead of a prison. they were going to put him in a regular prison. there was some press inquiries

and a protest. he'll be sent to the same prison as dzhokhar, the boston bomber. because he has two transplants, his health care is extremely expensive. it will cost at least a million dollars to imprison this very old, very sick man who was growing weed. >> this is jerry duvall who you're talking about, we should be clear here, these are not freak occurrences, there are 100,000 people incarcerated. as we have seen a real sea change in the polling data, as we've seen the politics change at the state level, are we seeing that filter down to the basic street level in terms of cops? it seems there's a growing disconnect between where society is, what it thinks is wrong, and where the law and law enforcement are. >> i think yes and no. you are seeing some change in the ground. you are seeing some officers

treated much less differently in colorado, for instance, after voters legalized marijuana, the d.a.'s dropped all the pending pot charges they had against people. even though, because it was illegal when it was passed, they still could have gone forward with that, but it's still costing people their lives. even people who aren't in prison for drugs are affected by it, let's say that you're in prison for burglary. and then you get paroled, if you show up and take a drug test and you test positive for marijuana, you're going right back into prison. so -- >> you're using tax resources on someone who presumably may not be a residivist. we're putting them back in the system and spend all the tax resources on that? >> right. and even people who aren't in that situation, you know, because -- they might not be able to get a job because of this, i mean, they might get fired from their job. there are all kinds of

repercussions that continue to hit people. nearly a million people a year are still arrested to this day for marijuana. now, the statistics are that marijuana selling has increased 10 to 15% the last several years, with arrests flat, the intensity of the arrests is going down, that's a small comfort to these nearly 1 million people whose lives are being disrupted by these arrests. >> ryan grim from the huffington post, thank you so much. >> thank you. remember when republicans wanted welfare recipients to undergo drug tests? they're proposing the same requirement for people who get food stamps. more on that coming up.

as the father of an 18-month-old, i finds myself sitting in the sandbox watching my daughter. she'll stomp over to some other unsuspecting toddler and do something breathtakingly anti-social, snatching a bucket from some boy's hands. a big part of parenting is walking over and saying, calmly, but firmly, no, we don't do that. we don't do that. that's the motto of the socialization process, and we all, from the time we emerge from the womb to our last breath on this earth are ceaselessly being taught the rules of society, of what is and isn't tolerated, what is and isn't done about this is of course

necessary and vital, observing social taboos, wanting to be respected and liked by our peers, in short caring what other people think the cornerstone of civilization. it's our default setting and makes human flourishing possible. but it's a crucial but. there are many circumstances in life, when caring too much about the esteem of our peers, about what just isn't done is massively destructive. think about it, there were many executives inside enron who probably would have spoken up or called the feds if they weren't so worried about destroying their relationships with their co-workers. and there were dozens, hundreds, of bankers and brokers during the housing bubble that went along with a ponzi scheme because pointing out that it was all a exam is something we don't do. there are reporters that know more than they will ever tell their readers, they do not want to invite rekrim nation from

their peers or sources. certain people, though are able somehow to transcend our deep socialization when the circumstances call for it. they're able to recognize corruption or duplicity that others accept to go along to get along. i've always had a special admiration for those people, who when it matters are willing to proclaim loudly, even rudely, this is f-ed up. michael hastings was that kind of person. the 33-year-old reporter and author died early tuesday morning in a car wreck. a brutal tragic loss that has robbed the world of an exemplary journalist and talented writer. he wrote detailed diligent riveting pieces that made things uncomfortable for politics and people of all kind of his blockbuster rolling stone article about stanley mcchrystal painted a picture of a general

who rolled his people under him. there was a backlash. >> it was an interview herald around the world. mcchrystal and his aides dispairaged president obama and called the national security officer a clown. >> michael hastings, if you believe him, says there were no ground rules laid out. to me, something doesn't add up here, i don't believe it. >> was michael hastings fair to the military men that trusted him. >> you have to wonder what rolling stone did to win over the general's confidence. this reporter is not someone with a track record. >> you have someone who's making friends with you, pretending to be sympathetic. >> it will have a chilling effect on reporting u.s. military. >> this will set back the reporting quite a ways, the

trust between the military and the media has been shot out of the water. >> michael hastings has never served his country the way mcchrystal has. >> this is going to have a dire effect between the media relations and the field. >> you see, michael, we don't do that. now, some of those people who are willing to yell out that the emperor has no clothes, some of them turn out to be people you wouldn't within to spend a lot of time with. some are jerks who are in the right place at the right time. people whose natural anti-social inclinations turn out to be useful and adaptive under certain circumstances but make them tiresome otherwise. what was so amazing about michael is that he wasn't that way. he liked to argue for sure. he could be difficult, but he was kind, generous, and charming and ernest. really ernest. and i got the sense in talking to him, that hen watted to be liked. which is what makes his body of work all that more remarkable. last night as i was sitting

alone after the show at home processing his death i thought about him writing up the first draft of that mcchrystal article. knowing that pblishing it would mean the senior officials he spent all that time with would hate him, feel betrayed, that the white house would never trust him, others in the press corps would view him as violating a code. future sources would be less likely to talk to him. i think of charming michael sitting alone in the charming light of his laptop, staring at his computer reading the draft one more time and knowing all of that was about to happen. and then i picture him clicking send. we'll be right back with clip three.

there's a republican jihad on food stamps of all things. that's coming up. the three awesomest things on the internet today, beginning with a shocking termination of a pitchman, i'm talking about george zimmer, not only the founder of the men's warehouse chain, but the face of the company delivering this signature line in its adds. >> you're going to like the way you look. i guarantee it. >> well apparently men's warehouse did not like the way he looked, so they fired him. men's warehouse keeps legal rights and more than 500 hours

of him. the chain has been evaluating his effectiveness as spokesman. everyone knows he's the guy selling affordable suits. i don't like where this is headed. next you'll tell me the hair club for men man was not the ceo. the second awesomist thing on the internet, the next time you get a lecture about how no one writes letters any more. people have been complaining about the creep of technology and its perilous impact on our society for at least 140 years. this includes quotes from old newspaper articles, folks opine about the downward spiral. we fire off a rapid short note instead of sitting down with a piece of paper.

1905, people talk with rise bikes without pausing to consider their surroundings. good thing these sensitive sounds weren't around to experience the dialup connection or the inevitable tweet of a congressman's junk. what would our foremothers think about our obsession posting video on the internet of our pets attempting to do human tasks. they would find it strange but adorable. perhaps the adorableness factor depends on the type of pet. >> good job. >> this is julius the snake. she will not only open your door, but haunt your dreams. in the year since it's been

uploaded, it's possible her owners have taught her to do all kinds of things, like drive a car, look after fido. what's the last thing julius knows how to do? that's right, scare the crap out of everyone she encounters. you can find the links to our top three on our website.

last night i called out republicans in the house for

wanting to cut $20 billion over ten years from the federal food stamp program. and if they get their way, about 2 million people, 4% of participants would lose their food stamp eligibility. my commentary got a fair amount of response, including this tweet from my friend tim carnie. are you predicting that many americans will now die of hunger, suffer malnutrition? in all honesty, i think people have that reaction a lot. this is the richest country in the world. it's true, we don't have people literally dying of starvation, that also seems a rather low bar for a country as great as this one. in 2011, 50 million people in america could not afford to provide adequate food for themselves or families of of those 17 million often had to skip meals reduce the size of their meals or even go without eating for an entire day. >> the assistance programs in the united states are very hard to qualify for. it's like either you're starving

or you don't get any help. what defines starving? if you don't eat for a day are you starving? in their eyes no, in your eyes and the way you feel, of course. >> there are still, though, hunger truthers out there who believe that if you can't survive off food stamps you're intentionally buying overpriced foods and shopping at high priced chains. most people don't realize that the average food stamp benefits amounts to $4.50 a day. 26 members of congress lived off a food stamp budget this week to draw attention to house republicans cuts to the program. they quickly discovered something about hunger poor people have known for a while. it sucks. enter congressman stockton's communications director. his mind is so powerful he wears an 11 gallon hat. he did about 12 gallons of trolling. he did the food stamp challenge and based on my personal experience we have room to cut

12% more. he had a full belly with a few bucks to spare. let's keep in mind who is beneficialing from snap. it's based on total gross household income. to qualify a family of four cannot exceed 29,976 a year, which calls 2,498 a month. subtract 949 for a typical two bedroom apartment. another 1,066 in child care costs. you're left with $483 for everything for the month. car insurance, gas, electric and phone bills, heat, clothes, incidentals and groceries. i'd like to see mr. ferguson manage that challenge for a whole year and then tell me how well he ate. joining me now is congresswoman barbara lee, democrat from california and co-founder of the out of poverty caucus. she organized the snap challenge to ask congress to pledge to eat

on a budget of less than $5 a day. when in your life did youize the snap program and what did it mean to you? >> i'm glad you're covering this. this is so important to many members of our country. in the early '70s, i had some difficult times, i was raising two small children as a single mother. there was nowhere to turn, but thank god for the food stamp program, and i am deeply grateful to the american people for extending that helping hand. everyone has hard times every now and then. let me tell you, chris, i know for a fact as a former public assistance recipient that no one wants to be on food stamps. everyone wants a job, they want a living wage so they can take care of their families and live the american dream. so it's a very difficult period and let me tell you, right now

going through the food stamp challenge again. really reminds me of what it takes, the -- the weariness, the hassle. how do you do this on 450 a day. i'm off of it tomorrow morning. think of the millions of people who see no end in sight, that is the tragedy about this. >> what is your understanding of what the motivation is of your colleagues who are trying to cut the program and have any been receptive across the aisle to your arguments for just how vital and necessary this is for the people that it helps? >> well, today we debated the mcgovern amendment for example, and congressman mcgovern for massachusetts is the co chair of our hunger caucus. and he's been a phenomenal leader in this. i wish you had heard the debate when his amendment came up to restore the 20 billion. first, many republicans said that people are gaming the system. well, you know, the food stamps, the snap program is one of the fewest gamed government support programs ever.

very little waste, fraud and abuse. if you want to look at waste, fraud and abuse, you look at the pentagon. the billions of dollars, the trillions of dollars that have gone out in these useless and unnecessary wars. when you look at waste, fraud and abuse, that's part of their argument that people are gaming the system. that is not the case. >> congressman barbara lee, thank you so much for coming by tonight. >> thank you. we'll be right back.

we're talking about the house republicans desire to cut 2 billion a year from food stamps. a proposal that would deny food assistance to many people, many of them children. joining me the executive director of the new york city coalition of hunger. he's author of the book, all you can eat, how hungry is america. that's the first question, you just did a documentary on this. what does this program do, and how necessary is it?

we're not in a developing world country we're not seeing images of swollen bellies and insects buzzing around children. that's what people think of when they of starvation. what does it look like? >> someone desperately trying to hold down one or two minimum wage jobs without benefits and still unable to put food on the table. that's what it looks like. >> people you work with, we have seen a huge change in the program the amount of people on snap has gone up. people look at this and say there's something wrong here. $80 billion a year is not a amount of money. what has happened? >> the reason we're not somalia or haiti, the program is working.

it's counter cyclical. when the economy's bad it increases, when the economy's good, it goes down. the reason we don't have mass starvation is this program is helping tens of millions of american families survive. the facts are, before the 1970s, when we did have the program, we had third world style malnutrition. these programs almost entirely ended hunger in the 1970s. >> that used to be a bipartisan understanding. bob doll is one of the founding fathers of this program. and it used to be a way to help farmers and families. there's a business case for continuing these programs. the biggest recipients of the money. it's all cycled back into the economy. >> no one's saving -- companies like kraft that make the boxed food that's inexpensive to buy, companies like walmart, supermarkets, all plow in the money from these food stamp

programs. we also had this interconnectedness of our safety net programs that's going to make this a double problem. feeding america that operates lots of food banks around the country sent out an alert saying, you have kids who get free and reduced lunch because their families are eligible for snap. >> eligibility is a marker threshold that's used across a variety of government programs. if you kick people out of it, they are kicking themselves out of the programs? >> i want to make an excellent case for this program. you or your child may not benefit from the program, but she's probably sitting next to someone in school who is. you're impacted by this whether you personally are or not. and i think we all pay the bill for the fact that we're willing to -- we're really being pennywise and pound foolish. we have a massive obesity problem in this country.

we're not looking at food policies that support the -- healthy foods. make those ridiculously cheap that someone on snap can afford. >> many of your viewers can't grasp what $20 billion means. every soup kitchen in america provides about $5 billion worth of food. if the house cuts go through, it's as if every charity in america providing food didn't exist for four years. >> the other thing is, republicans have this ideological belief that charities should feed the poor not the government. what ends up happening, you cut the program, the churches and food banks have to provide more assistance. >> i want to play this. we focus on the house there's a senate bill that's way less draconian. i want to play sound of him explaining what it is.

>> my second amendment is very simple and straightforward. it would establish a complete ban in the program for anyone who's committed a violent rain, rape or pedophilia, there would be no opt out for states. i hope we can form a bipartisan consensus around this basic idea. >> those are obviously horrific crimes, anyone who commits them should be held to account and face justice. when that justice has been served and they've gotten out of prison, it strikes me as strange that you would want to not have them eat. >> the other thing, do you want their children not to eat. >> we're talking about households. >> most americans are smart, it's obvious of naked politicking. we're trying to equate food stamps and criminality. it's no more complicated.

that's been a running theme of the republican assault. you look at the amendment list when we were going through them. it's this idea that there are people lining up the takers who are trying to sort of bilk this program for all it's worth, and we need to put these checks in front of them to make sure they're not going to -- >> remember too, there's an ethnic continuing to it too. they're trying to imply that all of these people are black and brown people. in fact, white women with kids are probably more proto typical of the program than anyone else. >> the hypocrisy of certain members of congress who get millions of farm subsidies themselves. >> literally themselves, they have farms and get checks from the government in farm subsidies. we're going to talk about this again. they just knocked down an amendment that would have stopped checks going to government with subsidies who have farms. we have to stop. thank you for joining me. that is all in for this evening. the rachel maddow show starts right this second.

>> good evening, chris. thank you. thanks to you at home for staying with us for the next hour. map time. this is canada. canada is enormous. canada is the second largest country in the world by area. it's provinces and territories stretch from the yukon terry all the way to newfoundland in the east. the eastern parts of canada are way further east than you think they are. there is a whole time zone in canada that is an hour further east than the eastern time zone in america. canada is huge. but the canadian province that sits roughly on top of the state of montana is the canadian province of alberta. earlier this month, there was a plane full of oil company officials flying over that part of the province.