8/2/2019 Pingree Testimony to House Ag Reconciliation SNAP
1/3
Chellie Pingree
House Ag Reconciliation Markup
April 18, 2012
This Committee had the opportunity to look at every farm program
in its purview and give
thoughtful consideration to where programs could be trimmed;
spreading the pain of
reconciliation cuts fairly across agriculture programs.
Unfortunately, instead of taking a
measured approach and making sensible reductions, we are faced
with $33 billion in cuts from
one of our most important safety nets.
$33 billion is an unthinkable cut, and it will come from the
most vulnerable in our society
nearly 75% of SNAP participants are in families with children
and more than 25% of participants
are in households with seniors or people with disabilities.
These families are struggling to put
food on the table and their lives will be that much more
difficult if their SNAP benefits are
reduced.
This $33 billion cut is clearly just a down payment on the $134
billion SNAP cut that was
outlined in the Ryan budget - a 17% cut to the program - which
passed the House easily 2 weeks
ago. Rather than increasing taxes on the wealthiest Americans,
or touching the overblown
defense budget, or raising revenue from corporations by closing
tax loopholes, we are being
asked to vote today to cut $33 billion from one of our most
efficient, effective, and helpful safety
net programs.
That 100 percent of the reconciliation cuts would come out of
the SNAP program would be
shameful at any time. However, proposing such an outrageous cut
while unemployment is above
1
8/2/2019 Pingree Testimony to House Ag Reconciliation SNAP
2/3
8% and food insecurity remains prevalent, makes this cut that
much more painful for those who
have been hit hardest by the economic downturn and its
aftermath.
This cut would also mean that thousands of poor children would
lose access to free school meals.
Since poor children who receive SNAP are automatically enrolled
to receive free school meals,
children who lose SNAP benefits would have to start paying the
reduced price for the healthy,
nourishing food they need in the middle of the day. Many
families may not be able to afford the
cost of reduced price meals and some children may go without
lunch at school. So these children
will have less food to eat at home and less to eat at
school.
There are a number of programs that we could be considering at
this markup. Just last week, the
GAO released a report showing that the federal government could
save about $1 billion a year by
reducing the subsidies it pays to large farms for crop
insurance. Is this an area that this
Committee could have considered for the cuts in reconciliation?
Of course it is. But rather than
even contemplate cutting any other program in this Committees
jurisdiction, the Chairmans
Mark focuses solely on the most vulnerable not direct payments
to large agri-businesses, not
crop insurance subsidies, or anywhere else that would not
increase hunger and poverty.
Since joining the agriculture committee early last year, I have
been looking forward to working
on the reauthorization of the farm bill. Although new to the
committee, its been my
understanding that for decades, Farm Bills have been undertaken
in a carefully negotiated,
bipartisan process. But if this is how were starting the process
right off the bat with a cut of
$33 billion to SNAP, leaving every other program untouched, how
are we supposed to move
2
