At a hearing on USDA’s budget for the fiscal year opening on Oct 1, two senior Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee said President Trump’s proposals to cut public feeding programs at home and abroad would increase hunger in the world. Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue said a high-ranking Republican’s defense of the Food for Peace program — targeted for elimination — was “essentially irrefutable” without suggesting the program would be saved.
Perdue, in soft-spoken and circumlocutious responses, agreed “absolutely” that food stamps are an effective program and that in the end, “turning the economy around with good job dignity” is the way to assure Americans have enough to eat. He told one critic that “I admire your passion and compassion.” The administration’s proposal to cut federal spending on food stamps by 25 percent over 10 years “is obviously something you and all of your members of Congress will deal with and have your stamp upon that.”
Interpretations of Perdue’s comments varied widely. The Washington Post said Perdue “is departing from the president’s plan to overhaul U.S. food aid, reaffirming on Wednesday that he still does not believe the food stamp system is ‘broken’ or requires fundamental change.” The New York Times said Perdue “was lukewarm in defending Trump’s budget” and The Hagstrom Report said the cabinet secretary did not attempt to defend the Trump budget in the face of withering criticism.
“Secretary Perdue supports the president’s budget proposal, which fully funds nutrition programs for FY2018,” said USDA spokesman Tim Murtaugh today in when asked about the proposed cuts in food stamps, formally named the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). “A growing economy and falling unemployment will make savings in SNAP possible in coming years. If you look at SNAP participation, it peaked during the Great Recession. But while unemployment has fallen dramatically, SNAP participation did not keep pace and has declined only slightly. The idea is to get people back on their feet and off the program. The SNAP legislative proposals will be considered as part of the 2018 farm bill.”
“Sadly, you come before us with a budget that will increase hunger worldwide, devastate rural America, increase the burden on the department and make it more difficult to meet the basic needs of American families,” said New York state Rep. Nita Lowey, the Democratic leader of the Appropriations Committee at the hearing on Wednesday. The committee chairman, Republican Rodney Frelinghuysen of Kentucky, said the committee will review the Trump budget and “we will make our determinations” about funding levels.
The administration would slash food stamps and crop insurance, eliminate many rural development programs, cut conservation spending by $6 billion over 10 years and cut the USDA workforce by 5.5 percent. Lowey and Connecticut Democrat Rosa DeLauro focused on proposals to cut food stamps by $193 billion over 10 years and to eliminate the McGovern-Dole food program for school children in developing nations and Food for Peace donations of U.S. food to alleviate hunger and improve local food supplies. Food for Peace was created during the Cold War.
Alabama Republican Robert Aderholt, chairman of the subcommittee that oversees USDA spending, said Food for Peace helped U.S. farmers and the U.S. maritime industry while reducing hunger. Elimination of the program is contrary to Trump’s “Buy American” pledge, said Aderholt.
“I think your comments are essentially irrefutable,” responded Perdue. “I would agree with you that we would love to have U.S.-produced commodities.”
DeLauro said the proposals on food stamps were heartless and would deny aid to millions of people. The administration would restrict eligibility for food stamps and require states to pay 25 percent of the cost of benefits. “It will not stand, Mr. Secretary. It will not stand,” she said.
During an exchange with DeLauro, Perdue twice said the USDA budget documents assume full funding of food stamps and the companion Women, Infants and Children program although the administration calls for sharp cuts. It is up to the Republican-controlled Congress, he said, to decide whether to go along with Trump.
Later in the hearing, Maryland Republican Andy Harris said food stamp participation rates remain high although the U.S. unemployment rate is down. “I’m glad the administration is restoring sanity to that program,” said Harris.
The think tank Center on Budget and Policy Priorities said the Trump budget would cut federal support for food stamps by 25 percent, “cutting eligibility for millions of households and reducing benefits for hundreds of thousands more. The unemployed, the elderly, and low-income working families with children would bear the brunt of the cuts.”
In the CBPP analysis, Stacy Dean, the think tank’s vice president for food assistance policy, said the administration would let states, as part of the cost-share requirement, to cut benefit levels as a cost-management tool. The provision would break a commitment to a basic diet for Americans regardless of where they live, said Dean. “Hundreds of thousands” of able-bodied people would be limited to three months of benefits in a 36-month period under a proposal to end longer benefits in most areas with high jobless rates. An estimated 1 million households would lose eligibility if Congress decides states cannot consider people for food stamps if they qualify for social welfare programs. The White House would restrict this so-called categorical eligibility to people who receive welfare payments.
To read Perdue’s written statement or to watch a video of the hearing, click here.