WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, Congresswoman Nikki Budzinski (IL-13) criticized House Republicans’ budget resolution that would result in $313 billion in cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Budzinski countered Republican claims that these cuts won’t result in a reduction in benefits and highlighted how nutrition assistance helps lift people out of poverty, enables economic mobility, and allows hardworking families a chance at a better life.
Get The Latest News!
Don't miss our top stories and need-to-know news everyday in your inbox.
Budzinski’s opening remarks as prepared for delivery can be found below:
Mr. Chairman, one year ago, I sat in this room and shared my disappointment over the proposed Farm Bill. I regret to say that disappointment has only grown. Not only am I troubled by the content of the bill we are marking up today, but also the fact that select Farm Bill provisions are being rolled into a partisan package built on the backs of our most vulnerable neighbors.
I want to echo my Democratic colleagues who have called out the reckless dismantlement of SNAP in this package. We know, based on data, that SNAP is a program that enables economic mobility and allows hardworking families a chance at a better life. I take very serious issue with the idea of demonizing SNAP recipients and of claims that this is a fraudulent program. It’s simply not.
Democrats have opposed SNAP cuts for decades. We have spoken out against them in past reconciliation processes, in past Farm Bills, and for the entirety of the 119th Congress leading up to this markup. It has never been a secret that we are going to stand against SNAP cuts. And to the tune of over $313 billion? This WILL take food away from SNAP households that are home to a child, an older adult, or a disabled adult. And for what? To pay for tax cuts for the wealthiest people in this country? It’s unconscionable.
I know what you all have said. “It’s not a cut; it’s a cost shift. It’s not a cut; it’s a reduction in future benefits. It’s not a cut; it’s changing program access.” Just because you say something over and over again — doesn't make it true.
You pursued these cuts, in a historically bipartisan committee, knowing what it would do to our ability to work together. You have created a partisan package, intentionally boxing out Democrats, and then put part of the Farm Bill in it. What kind of sham process is this? Our families and our farmers deserve better.
Last year’s bill was a partisan, geographic package that pitted farmers against the people they feed and picked favorites among programs. I won’t spend much of my opening remarks harping on this, but I do want to point out one glaring omission from this bill compared to last year’s Farm Bill.
Last year, the Farm Bill eliminated the Secretary’s discretionary authority to utilize the Commodity Credit Corporation to respond to natural disasters, market failures, and other important matters. Republicans on this committee claimed a $50 billion savings and voted against a Democratic amendment objecting to it. It’s interesting that now, the CCC is left intact – shortly after the administration launched a needless trade war impacting the markets our farmers need. Last time President Trump was in office, USDA spent over $25 billion in taxpayer money from the CCC to correct it.
I object to imploding a bipartisan coalition of interests for our farmers, our working families, and the rural communities that rely on Farm Bill programs to sustain them. There is NO reason why we could not have come to the table to build a bipartisan Farm Bill in regular order. Failing to do that will have years-long consequences. Despite this committee’s history as cooperative and bipartisan, Democrats have been completely shut out of this hyper partisan process.
When we leave this markup, I can tell the farmers in my district – “I fought for you.” I can look my neighbors in the eyes and say, “I fought for you.”
Unfortunately, not everybody in this room will be able to do the same. Thank you Mr. Chairman and I yield back.
More like this:
