DeLauro Calls out Trump Administration for Decimating the SNAP Program

WASHINGTON, DC (May 24, 2017) — Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro (CT-03) today pressed Sonny Perdue, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, to discuss how the Trump Administration's budget will deeply affect the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), also known as food stamps. The Administration has proposed changes that would cut SNAP by $193 billion—more than 25 percent of the program total. DeLauro is a senior member on the Appropriations subcommittee responsible for funding the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Click here to watch the full remarks.

Here is the exchange, as delivered:

DeLauro: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank the Ranking Member, Congressman Bishop, for your courtesy—I really appreciate it—and also to the Ranking Member of the full committee, Mrs. Lowey. Thank you so much for allowing me to proceed.

Mr. Secretary, first of all congratulations again to you. I believe it is an extraordinary subcommittee—its portfolio reaches into every aspect of our society, of our culture, and what helps our country to grow.

I would just have to say this to you—I'm known for being direct and I will be direct about my view of this budget document, and my hope is that this budget document is dead on arrival. Because I believe it cruel, I believe it heartless, and I believe it inhumane.

Now let me get to an issue that's very near and dear to my heart and that is the food stamp program.

And before the House Agriculture Committee on the state of the rural economy, you stated, and this is a quote, SNAP "has been a very important, effective program" and that as far as you are concerned "we have no proposed changes, you don't try to fix things that aren't broken. And when the motto is ‘do right and feed everyone.'" And I have to ask you for ‘yes' or ‘no's' because my time is going to be limited, do you still feel those words to be true?

Perdue: Absolutely.

DeLauro: Okay, the reason I ask is because this statement is not at all aligned with the Administration's proposal to completely gut the food stamp program. If you feel that the SNAP program is not broken and that we should do right by feeding everyone, why are we proposing a $193 billion cut, over 25 percent, and take away the benefits to some of our most vulnerable populations? SNAP works, and it works for those who need it the most. It has been incredibly successful in alleviating hunger, lifting people out of poverty, and supporting our economy. This is wrongheaded and flies in the face of what apparently is your mission, which is to make sure we do right, and feed everyone. Millions of people will be thrown off the food stamp program because of this heartless budget. I have several other questions, so I am going to ask you to be brief before my time runs out.

Perdue: Would you like me to respond to that? I would welcome the opportunity to respond. I think, Ms. DeLauro, if you would notice, the FY18 budget fully funds the SNAP as it has been. The legislative proposal going forward is obviously something you and all of your Members of Congress will deal with and have your stamp upon that. I want to make the distinction.

DeLauro: Understand. That's great. That's great, because there are a number of us who, in fact, will put a stamp on the program. $193 billion, a 25 percent cut, to a program that feeds people in the United States is outrageous. Let me just, now a couple of other things.

Perdue: If I could mention one other thing there. We knew, in the wise creation of the supplemental nutrition program, was a temporary program, really for unemployment there. We know what the unemployment levels are compared to where they peaked in previous years. And we see those going down. That's why we've been able to achieve some savings there.

DeLauro: $193 billion is not achieving some savings; it's gutting a program. A couple of other facts, in your state of Georgia—and in Mr. Aderholt's state, Alabama—has categorical eligibility, no asset test. That's the same that's true for Georgia. And we're about here to take away state's rights, to make the decision for its citizens. The Standard Utility Allowance, the Broad-Based Categorical Eligibility, the ABAWD waivers allow states to have flexibility to operate SNAP efficiently. Other than to simply reach a number to balance the budget, why, in my view, are these proposals being discussed? So many states are dependent upon these areas.

I'm going to finish up with this, because I've got 22 seconds, and I suppose this is addressed to Mr. Aderholt. The ABAWDs, and you've asked for the Democrats' view on these issue, Mr. Chairman. You know where I come down on this, I think it's immoral to attack a diverse and struggling, underserved group of poor Americans, many by the way, of whom are veterans, caregivers for a parent, have physical and mental health limitations, and language barriers. I will not address your program for drug testing.

ABAWDs, three months total in any 36 month period, average income is $3,400—those who lose SNAP benefits drop even lower. Is there a requirement that states provide job training? No. Percentage of SNAP recipients as ABAWDs is 10 percent. Average benefit per meal is $1.40. Are they cut off even if they are working 19 hours a week? Yes. Does this affect the homeless? Yes.

We can do better in the United States of America, Mr. Secretary. Let me just tell you that these programs in the past have had, for 40 years, bipartisan support, because we recognized hunger in the United States. It exists in the United States today. And this is a cruel and heartless turning of our backs on the people in this nation who are hungry. We'll have a chance to talk more about this, I hope, offline, or in the future. But, it will not stand, Mr. Secretary, it will not stand. Thank you.

Perdue: Congresswoman, I want you to know that I admire and respect your passion and your compassion. And I think again, just for a little difference of perspective, certainly, I believe the best way to provide for poverty and hunger in this country, is turning the economy around with good job dignity.

DeLauro: I concur, but there are no jobs at the moment and in the meantime, people will starve. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it.

Aderholt: You're welcome, and let me just note, you know, a lot of those requirements you talked about, did come under the Clinton Administration. I think it should be noted on that.

DeLauro: You know where it comes to the food stamp program, look I can go back to 1996 where the Welfare Bill, which I voted against, did not index food stamps to inflation. It kept the number where it was.

In the 2008 Farm Bill, on a bipartisan basis, we worked through this. We made sure food stamps benefits were indexed to inflation, that we changed the asset level so that more people could be included. We dealt with the minimum benefit and the maximum benefit, and it was on a bipartisan basis.

And subsequent to that, this program has worked and it's worked as it should. In difficult times, people have the opportunity to be able to get a hand up. Most people are on food stamps for between eight and ten months. It is not forever. And to go after this program, in this way, as I said, it is not about the values of this great nation and what we are about. We don't stop feeding children.

Robert Kennedy says in a nation of abundance, "poverty is evil." And this is evil if we do this.