[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
A THREAT TO AMERICA'S CHILDREN:
THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION'S PROPOSED
CHANGES TO BROAD-BASED CATEGORICAL
ELIGIBILITY FOR THE SUPPLEMENTAL
NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC AND CONSUMER
POLICY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 6, 2020
__________
Serial No. 116-89
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Reform
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available on: www.govinfo.gov
oversight.house.gov or
docs.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
43-858 PDF WASHINGTON : 2023
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM
CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York, Chairwoman
Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Jim Jordan, Ohio, Ranking Minority
Columbia Member
Wm. Lacy Clay, Missouri Paul A. Gosar, Arizona
Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts Virginia Foxx, North Carolina
Jim Cooper, Tennessee Thomas Massie, Kentucky
Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia Mark Meadows, North Carolina
Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois Jody B. Hice, Georgia
Jamie Raskin, Maryland Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin
Harley Rouda, California James Comer, Kentucky
Ro Khanna, California Michael Cloud, Texas
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Florida Bob Gibbs, Ohio
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland Clay Higgins, Louisiana
Peter Welch, Vermont Ralph Norman, South Carolina
Jackie Speier, California Chip Roy, Texas
Robin L. Kelly, Illinois Carol D. Miller, West Virginia
Mark DeSaulnier, California Mark E. Green, Tennessee
Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan Kelly Armstrong, North Dakota
Stacey E. Plaskett, Virgin Islands W. Gregory Steube, Florida
Jimmy Gomez, California Fred Keller, Pennsylvania
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York
Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts
Rashida Tlaib, Michigan
Katie Porter, California
Deb Haaland, New Mexico
David Rapallo, Staff Director
Rich Trumpka, Subcommittee Staff Director
Taylor Jones, Clerk
Christopher Hixon, Minority Staff Director
Contact Number: 202-225-5051
------
Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy
Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois, Chairman
Mark DeSaulnier, California, Michael Cloud, Texas, Ranking
Ro Khanna, California Minority Member
Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin
Rashida Tlaib, Michigan James Comer, Kentucky
Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia Chip Roy, Texas
Katie Porter, California Carol D. Miller, West Virginia
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on February 6, 2020................................. 1
Witness
Ms. Lisa Davis, Senior Vice President, No Kid Hungry Campaign,
Share our Strength
Oral Statement............................................... 4
Mr. Zach Pethan, Principal, Jefferson Elementary, Sheboygan Area
School District
Oral Statement............................................... 6
Ms. Diane Sullivan, Advocate, Witnesses to Hunger
Oral Statement............................................... 7
Ms. Tega Toney, Teacher, Oak Hill High School, Fayette County
Schools
Oral Statement............................................... 9
* The prepared statements for the above witnesses are available
at: docs.house.gov.
INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
----------
The Unanimous Consent (UC) documents listed below are available
at: docs.house.gov.
* Letter from President Randi Weingarten of the American
Federation of Teachers; submitted by Rep. Krishnomoorthi.
* Letter from the U.S. Conference of Mayors; Rep.
Krishnomoorthi.
* Letter from 24 faith groups; Rep. Krishnomoorthi.
* Letter from MAZON; Rep. Krishnomoorthi.
* Letter from the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism;
Rep. Krishnomoorthi.
* Letter from the National Women's Law Center; Rep.
Krishnomoorthi.
* Letter from the West Virginia Chamber of Commerce; Rep.
Krishnomoorthi.
* Letter from a group of chefs who feed hungry kids through the
No Kid Hungry Campaign; Rep. Krishnomoorthi.
* Copy of Maine's long-form application for food stamps; Rep.
Pressley.
* News article, Detroit News, "Detroit plays games with school
funding," Sept. 28, 2017; submitted by Rep. Tlaib.
A THREAT TO AMERICA'S CHILDREN:
THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION'S PROPOSED
CHANGES TO BROAD-BASED CATEGORICAL
ELIGIBILITY FOR THE SUPPLEMENTAL
NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
----------
Thursday, February 6, 2020
House of Representatives,
Committee on Oversight and Reform,
Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:09 a.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Raja
Krishnamoorthi (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Krishnamoorthi, Maloney, Khanna,
Pressley, Tlaib, Connolly, Porter, Cloud, Grothman, Comer, and
Miller.
Also present: Representative Sarbanes.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. The committee will come to order.
Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess
of the committee at any time.
I now recognize myself for five minutes to give an opening
statement.
Every child deserves the chance to grow up healthy.
Children shouldn't have to worry about where their next meal
will come from. That's an unimaginable burden for a young
person that can deprive them of their childhood. Food
insecurity hurts children's academic outcomes, their ability to
pay attention, and their behavior. It has long-term impacts on
physical and mental health and even depresses lifetime
earnings.
As Dr. Martin Luther King said in 1964, there is nothing
new about poverty. What is new, however, is that we have the
resources now to get rid of it. That same year, in 1964,
America enacted the precursor to the Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program, known as SNAP. America still has the
resources to address poverty and the ability to lift up
society's most vulnerable so they can achieve the American
dream.
SNAP is one of our best tools for doing that. It provides
moderate assistance to help feed Americans in need. On average,
only $1.43 per meal for participants and nearly 70 percent of
households receiving SNAP benefits have children.
But SNAP doesn't just help feed children, the elderly, and
the disabled that make up two thirds of its participants. It
also boosts the economy, more than any other government
program. According to Moody's, every dollar of SNAP benefits
increases GDP by $1.73. Just to repeat, every $1 of SNAP
benefits increases the national economy by $1.37. That's an
incredible return on investment.
And SNAP creates jobs. According to the USDA, every $10,000
in SNAP benefits creates one full-time rural job and
approximately every $25,000 in SNAP benefits creates one full-
time urban job. SNAP dollars are quickly spent on food
necessities and flow into local businesses, ultimately
supporting trucking and farm jobs, among other things. So this
program designed to feed children, the elderly, and the
disabled also boosts our economy and creates jobs.
As this committee is responsible for combating waste,
fraud, and abuse, it's also worth noting that SNAP-related
fraud is almost nonexistent. SNAP also gives states flexibility
to tailor the program to their citizens' needs.
First, it incentivizes work by allowing states to ease
income eligibility limits so that someone doesn't have to turn
down work to maintain SNAP eligibility as they get back on
their feet.
Second, SNAP allows states to let citizens own a car to get
to work or to save for an emergency like surprise medical
bills.
The administration currently through their proposal to
change SNAP wants to disarm states of both of these tools, but
in doing so it will strip 3.1 million households of their SNAP
benefits, including more than 2 million households with
children. It also strips free lunch enrollment for nearly 1
million kids.
For those children, the Trump administration policy would
take food out of their mouths at home and at school. How can we
expect those kids to succeed? The administration needs to
abandon this proposal.
As the late chairman, Elijah Cummings, would have said, we
are better than this. We know what a difference SNAP makes for
families and children who would otherwise go hungry.
I know from personal experience. I came to the United
States from India with my parents when I was three months old
so my father could pursue his education and our family could
embrace the opportunities that America has to offer. Despite my
parents' best efforts, it wasn't easy. When we needed help, we
were able to receive food stamps as my parents worked their way
out of a difficult time.
Today, my father is an engineering professor of 40 years,
still teaching at Bradley University in Peoria, Illinois, my
brother is a doctor, and I'm a Congressman. That was my
family's dream, and it was possible because of my parents' hard
work, but also because of the opportunities our country
presents and the generosity and good will of the people of
America.
An American President once told Congress, quote, "that
hunger and malnutrition persists in a land such as ours is
embarrassing and intolerable." That President was Richard
Nixon. If President Nixon and Dr. King could agree on the
importance of fighting hunger all those decades ago, surely,
surely, we can find common ground today to continue Congress'
strong support for SNAP.
I thank you.
And now I recognize Chairwoman Maloney for her opening
statement.
Mrs. Maloney. Thanks. I thank you so much.
I thank all of you for coming today.
As the chairwoman on the Committee on Oversight and Reform,
I want to thank Raja Krishnamoorthi, the chairman of the
Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy, for convening
this important hearing. I also want to thank him for sharing
his personal story and showing how important the program is and
how we need to protect food for our families, many struggling,
that are wonderful people.
I think you really showed the importance of this incredible
program.
This hearing will examine the proposed rollbacks of broad-
based categorical eligibility for the Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program, or SNAP, one of the most important programs
the Federal Government has. This is the third in a series of
four hearings that we're having this week, examining the
negative effects of the Trump administration's policies on
poverty, housing, hunger, and health regulations for children.
These hearings are about the Trump administration's attack
on children. Congress should be protecting children from the
administration's harmful regulations and ensuring that our
children have the resources they need to reach their full
potential.
One in six children in this country is already food
insecure, meaning they lack reliable access to food. According
to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's own estimate, if this
proposal is enacted, over 680,000 households with children
would lose the SNAP food benefits and nearly 1 million children
would likely lose direct enrollment for free school meals.
The administration's effort to roll back broad-based
eligibility for SNAP will increase food insecurity for children
across this country. Any effort to modify SNAP should reduce
food insecurity and not make kids hungry, especially here in
America.
I yield back.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. I thank you, Chairwoman. I thank you
for your leadership on this particular issue. I really
appreciate it. Thank you.
Mrs. Maloney. Well, I thank you for your leadership. All of
these hearings, I think, are so important, and it shows a
uniformity of attack on children. We're looking at food,
rolling back the poverty standards, loosening the controls on
toxic emissions into the environment, all terribly damaging to
children. I think we should put in bills to put them all back
and make it law in the country.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Well, I thank you, Chairwoman.
Mrs. Maloney. I thank you.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Mr. Cloud is on his way back from an
engagement, and he will present his opening statement following
the witnesses.
Let me first introduce Ms. Lisa Davis, senior vice
president for the No Kid Hungry Campaign and Share Our
Strength.
Thank you so much.
Mr. Zach Pethan, Principal of Jefferson Elementary School
in the Sheboygan Area School District in Wisconsin.
Thank you so much.
Ms. Diane Sullivan, an advocate, and she's with the
organization Witnesses to Hunger.
Ms. Tega Toney. She's a teacher at Oak Hill High School in
the Fayette County schools.
Thank you.
And, of course, Mr. Adolphsen, thank you so much for
coming.
He is a policy director with the Foundation for Government
Accountability.
Thank you, sir.
If you would all please rise and raise your right hand, I
will begin by swearing you in.
Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to
give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,
so help you God?
Let the record show that the witnesses answered in the
affirmative.
Thank you, and you may be seated.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. The microphones are sensitive, so
please speak directly into them. I'll just explain the lighting
system very briefly. Green means go. Red means stop. And
yellow, unlike with stop lights here, means speed up.
OK. So with that, Ms. Davis, you are now recognized for
five minutes.
STATEMENT OF LISA DAVIS, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, NO KID HUNGRY
CAMPAIGN, SHARE OUR STRENGTH
Ms. Davis. Thank you. Good morning. Thank you for the
opportunity to join you today to share concerns about the
administration's proposed rule to roll back broad-based
categorical eligibility, or BBCE.
My name is Lisa Davis, and I'm the senior vice president of
Share Our Strength's No Kid Hungry Campaign. Share Our Strength
is focused on ending poverty and hunger in the U.S. and
worldwide, but we do have a particular focus on children here
in the United States.
I'm here today to talk about two things. First, to provide
a brief overview of BBCE and why it is so important for
families; and, second, how this rule would hurt working poor
families, seniors, and individuals with disabilities.
First, what it does. BBCE is an effective practical policy.
There are many families with gross incomes slightly above 130
percent of poverty but who still have difficulty making ends
meet and affording food because of high costs of things like
housing, childcare, medical benefits. BBCE allows these
families to remain eligible for SNAP and preschool meals. It
creates efficiency and reduces administrative burdens on state
agencies and schools.
But, most importantly, it encourages work. It helps low-
income families move out of poverty and build financial
security. It allows them to accumulate modest assets to weather
an unexpected financial crisis. It also helps ensure that their
children can receive the nutrition they need at home and at
school.
One thing BBCE is not is an automatic pathway to SNAP
benefits. Families must still apply and qualify for benefits
through the regular application process, which has rigorous
procedures for documenting income and circumstances. Indeed,
families can be categorically eligible for SNAP but not receive
a benefit because their net income is too high.
Let me give you an example of who it helps. A single mother
with two children who works full time and earns $12.50 an hour
could receive $161 in SNAP per month. Without BBCE, if her
wages increased by just 50 cents an hour, her income would
exceed 130 percent of poverty and her family would lose SNAP,
ending up with $75 per month fewer in resources. She would
actually be worse off for accepting a marginal raise. BBCE
prevents that and supports work by letting that family slowly
phase off SNAP as mom's earnings increase
Access to SNAP is important because a robust body of
research reinforces that SNAP is our Nation's most effective
program, particularly for children. By reducing food insecurity
and poverty and improving a child's long-term outcomes,
including health, education, and even lifetime earnings, SNAP
provides a return of investment that any corporate CEO would
envy.
And make no mistake, the administration's proposal to
restrict BBCE would be a harsh step backward in our fight to
end childhood hunger. If the administration's proposed rule
becomes law, 3.1 million people, more than 2 million of whom
are in families with children, will lose their SNAP benefits
entirely, and an estimated 982,000 children will lose the
automatic certification for free school meals that results from
their family's receipt of SNAP.
Even though many of these children will remain income-
eligible for free or reduced-price meals, experience tells us
that far too many will fall through the cracks. Confusion about
eligibility, complex paperwork, human error, and stigma all
create barriers to enrollment. Even the lower cost of a
reduced-price meal is a heavy burden for families that are
saving every dime to cover basics like rent, utilities, and
gas.
So, what happens when children lose SNAP and school meals?
They face a double whammy of meals lost at home and at school.
It exacerbates all the other problems that hungry children
face, diminishing their academic performance, their mental and
physical health, and their opportunity to achieve their full
potential. Food is one of the most important school supplies
children have.
I work with families living with food insecurity. They are
moms and dads who are working incredibly hard to better their
lives and those of their children. Often they hold down
multiple jobs, cut expenses to the bone, and yet still find it
impossible to stretch their paychecks to make ends meet. One
emergency expense, like a car repair or a medical bill, can set
them back for months or even years.
I would like to leave you with one final thought. Broad-
based categorical eligibility is working. It helps low-income
families work and build savings. It also ensures that their
children get the fuel they need to grow, thrive, and reach
their full potential. Those are goals we can all agree on.
Thank you.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Thank you, Ms. Davis.
Mr. Pethan.
STATEMENT OF ZACH PETHAN, PRINCIPAL, JEFFERSON ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL, SHEBOYGAN AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT
Mr. Pethan. It is 10 a.m. on Monday morning, and you are
sitting in your third grade classroom. The teacher is beginning
to introduce the reading lesson for the day, which is focused
on the phonics of how consonant blends work together to make
sounds that will help you decode words when you are reading.
You are asked to work together with a partner to identify
words with the same pattern. You look around and think that
everyone is able to focus on the task, but you simply cannot.
It has been approximately 65 hours since you ate a substantial,
quality meal last week, Friday, for lunch at school.
Your stomach begins to turn, and you start to feel anxious
and frustrated and unable to focus. All you can think about is
the lunch period that won't begin for another two hours. The
teacher notices that you are not paying attention and asks you
to focus on the partner project as she reminds you how
important it is to understand this to be a good reader.
You think, ``This is not as important to me as it is to
you. I'm hungry.'' You lose a connection with that teacher
because you believe she doesn't understand you and, therefore,
you begin to tune her out.
After several weeks, months, years of tuning the teachers
out, you realize that you are so far behind your peers, the
idea of catching up academically seems overwhelming and,
therefore, not worth your energy. You look for ways to pass the
time, which means talking to your friends and disrupting the
class.
All of these disruptions get you sent to the principal's
office and out of class so as to avoid the embarrassment of not
knowing the material. The disruptions become more chronic and
severe until eventually you are suspended from school. Time
goes on, and your attendance rate drops. When desperation
overcomes you, you decide to drop out of school.
With few job skills to enter the work force, you are left
with limited options for employment. They do not pay well
enough or are stable enough to save money or advance your
career. You are living paycheck to paycheck.
You start a family and want what is best for them. You want
what every parent wants from their children from every
background: a better future. You start to work several jobs so
you can become financially secure, but to do so you are not
spending time at home with your family. Your kids want you
around, your child's school wants you involved, but you have to
decide between being there for your kids or financial solvency.
One of the biggest barriers to academic/social success and
subsequently social mobility is nutrition. Jefferson Elementary
School in Sheboygan, Wisconsin, has students like this, as well
as countless schools across the country. These schools are not
only located in major urban areas, but also suburban and rural
communities, even in Sheboygan County that boasts one of the
lowest percentages of unemployment in the country. Changes
affecting eligibility of students to access school nutrition
will have an overall negative effect in our schools and
communities across the country.
Using the combined average percentage of students that are
from Direct Certified families, the Sheboygan Area School
District has four schools eligible and participating in the CEP
program. The CEP program allows these schools to offer a free
breakfast and lunch to all of our students, regardless of their
participation in the SNAP program. Parents no longer have to
complete a complex annual free or reduced lunch application,
but a much simpler alternative income form which is used to
determine if the family is economically disadvantaged or not.
When all students are participating in school lunch, it
creates an environment free of stigma. When all students are
eating the same meal, it becomes less apparent which students
come from low-income families. When all students participate
without negative stigma, meal participation increases
dramatically. Our data shows that when more students get a meal
school option, behavior incidents decline.
When all students participate in meal programs, we are able
to adjust our schedule to include serving breakfast in the
classroom. Breakfast in the classroom allows teachers and
students a time to share a meal together, to build
relationships that go beyond education. Students and teachers
can talk about their lives outside of school, learn important
social skills, and spot a child that is struggling and offer
support. The relationships created during these mealtimes are
invaluable to building a school community focused on the whole
child.
By offering free meal options, we also free parents to
focus energy and resources on other needs. Parents have to buy
fewer groceries because they know their child will have a
nutritious breakfast and lunch at school. Parents can focus on
spending quality time with their kids rather than frantically
preparing breakfast or lunches. Parents can use that saved
money to provide other essential needs for their families,
save, or invest in their own career advancement.
If changes are made to the broad-based categorical
eligibility, a segment of our families will no longer qualify
for SNAP. When this percentage goes down, we are unable to
offer free breakfast and lunch to all schools. Without these
options available to all students, families will be forced to
make tough, no-win decisions for their families. The result
will be an increase in hunger and, therefore, less educational
opportunity and upward mobility for our country's most valuable
and vulnerable population, our kids.
I thank you so much for this opportunity to present this
story about Jefferson Elementary School.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Thank you very much. We really
appreciate it.
Ms. Sullivan, you're on the clock for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF DIANE SULLIVAN, ADVOCATE, WITNESSES TO HUNGER
Ms. Sullivan. Chairman Krishnamoorthi and members of this
esteemed committee, thank you for the opportunity to present
testimony before you.
I am Diane Sullivan, mother of six from Medford,
Massachusetts. I've experienced hunger, homelessness for a year
with my family, and have been an antipoverty advocate for the
past 20 years. I seek to create meaningful seats at the table
for those impacted by harmful policies like the
administration's proposal to limit categorical eligibility in
the SNAP program that allows individual states to consider the
local economic conditions when determining which of their
residents qualifies.
My family is among the 3.1 million Americans who will lose
SNAP benefits if this proposed rule stands. I live with four of
my children, two high school students and two recent graduates.
Because my two daughters work, in addition to my own income
from their part-time jobs, is also considered when determining
SNAP eligibility. Our combined monthly gross income is $124
above the Federal SNAP income limit of 130 percent FPL for a
family of five. But because my state applies broad and
categorical eligibility and my work-related expenses are
considered, our income after deductions currently qualifies us
for $187 in monthly SNAP benefits.
My state ranks third highest in rental housing costs,
second in childcare, and first in terms of the cost of our
food. Categorical eligibility allows states to consider these
types of barriers to food faced by their residents.
Massachusetts allows for households with income up to 200
percent FPL to be considered for SNAP, not eligible but
considered. Counter to the administration's rhetoric, I didn't
just wander into an office, receive a pamphlet, and walk out
with SNAP benefits. That is not at all how this works.
Our income at 135 percent FPL only allowed us through the
door to then be intensely screened to determine that our income
after deductions falls below the Federal threshold, then
triggering eligibility. In fact, it took three months of
overcoming bureaucratic confusion for us to be found eligible.
Still, we are recovering from the time when we weren't
receiving the benefits for which we were eligible. It went
beyond reducing the number of healthy meals and snacks for my
children, particularly my two teenage boys. It meant that I was
dipping into funds meant for rent and utilities and visiting
food pantries to feed my family.
Adding to the trauma of these troubles, the 16-year-old
vehicle I was gifted five years ago broke down and needed
repair. This delicate juggling act resulted in a rather solemn
2019 holiday season. My children do not ask for much. They're
well-adjusted, respectful, and caring young adults, but that
doesn't minimize the pain that I as a mother, like so many
others, who had a plan to celebrate them by fulfilling their
modest wish list and filling their bellies with a holiday
feast. Instead, I felt as empty as the space under the tree
where their gifts should have been as we sat and ate the one-
pot meal I had prepared for which we were all grateful. During
those months, the fruit bowl on my kitchen table often sat
empty. I stretched the meat and veggies intended for one meal
into two.
My fear is that we will be pushed back into the same
situation if this rule is implemented. Without SNAP, in
addition to having less food at home, my son could lose access
to free school meals. Even if they qualify for reduced costs,
that's $252 in an annual expense my already overwhelmed budget
cannot absorb. Further, we would lose access to the healthy
incentive program that makes purchasing fresh produce from
local farmers more affordable.
Mr. Chairman, I'm an active advocate for our neighbors who
struggle to afford food in this Nation of agricultural
abundance. The past few years have taught me that productive
farmers who do produce the safest, most diverse and affordable
food options in the world are perhaps among the best friends
that low-income people can have. Increasingly, corporate
retailers, policymakers, and food advocates are placing burdens
on farmers that drive up food prices. Low-income families are
caught in the middle between one ideology that makes food more
expensive and the other which erodes the safety net.
This proposal, like many burdens placed on farmers, is
designed by people who can afford to not even look at food
prices when they shop. Please understand from someone who has
worked hard, struggled, and still raised some really good
children against the odds, this SNAP proposal is a gutshot to
those least equipped to take the blow or to fight back.
I thank you for taking the time to hear not just from
policy experts, but also from this expert versed in the
experience of hunger. I thank you.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. I thank you very much, Ms. Sullivan.
Ms. Toney, you have five minutes.
STATEMENT OF TEGA TONEY, TEACHER, OAK HILL HIGH SCHOOL, FAYETTE
COUNTY SCHOOLS
Ms. Toney. Chairman Krishnamoorthi, Ranking Member Cloud,
and members of the subcommittee, my name is Tega Toney, and I'm
a social studies teacher at Oak Hill High School in Oak Hill,
West Virginia. We are situated in the southern portion of the
state which is struggling due to declining coal revenues and a
crippling opioid epidemic. The majority of my students come
from households struggling to make ends meet. Many of my
students are the primary caregivers of their younger siblings.
I have students who are homeless, who have lost parents to an
overdose, and who are working evening jobs to contribute
financially to their families. For these reasons and many more,
it is gut-wrenching to see a proposal to cut SNAP benefits that
will only hurt these children and families even more.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to share how food
insecurity is a real and tangible threat to my students and
their wellbeing. Every day I see the impact hunger can have on
a student. Academically, students are unable to focus and
become inattentive, causing them to miss important and vital
information in class. The more information students miss in
class, the further behind they fall.
Food insecurity also affects students and their families
emotionally. When parents are struggling to put food on the
table, many may feel a sense of worthlessness. Children can
sense this, especially high school students like mine. As
educators, we see children bring these issues into the
classroom with them. They also carry the emotional burdens they
experience from home, from a food-insecure home. I have
witnessed this in my students in many ways, ranging from mood
swings and irritability to emotional outbursts and beyond. This
is a real issue that needs to be considered when funds that
provide access to food and nutrition are being cut.
My real fear and concern is that if this proposal comes to
fruition, many of my students, along with thousands of other
students in West Virginia, will lose access to food at home and
at school. While it is true that some of those students will
still qualify for free and reduced price meals, it will require
their parents or legal guardians to submit paperwork. This is a
purposefully unnecessary barrier. There are countless instances
when parents cannot complete the required paperwork. Just in my
community, I can tell that you that this could be due to pride,
shame, or an incapacitation as a result of addiction.
Almost a decade ago, my school district recognized the need
to combat the food insecurity that was plaguing our students.
We included a universal feeding program in our excess levy so
that all students, no matter their socioeconomic status,
receive free breakfast and lunch. This is a combined effort of
the Federal Government, our school district, and taxpayers to
care for our most vulnerable population: our children.
Every school in our district qualifies under the community
eligibility provision. We receive Federal money to cover the
initial costs, and the money from the excess levy covers the
rest. The levy is up for a vote every five years and has always
passed with more than a 70 percent pass rate. The message our
district sends is clear: We care about kids and their need for
proper nutrition.
While I tout and I am proud of our universal feeding
program, it does raise an important question. Is it fair to
expect a school district to shoulder a responsibility of this
magnitude? If this proposal is enacted, many school districts
would not be able to develop and implement creative solutions
such as the one in my district. Are we going to expect
teachers, school cooks, custodians, and secretaries to begin
carrying this responsibility?
School employees already carry our students' emotional
baggage home with us. In many instances, school employees try
to meet the basic needs of our students, while also caring for
our own families. We love and care for kids. That is why we are
in the business we are in. But is it fair to expect us to
shoulder this burden too?
In southern West Virginia, our families, students, schools,
and communities are hurting. Unfortunately, our situation is
not unique. The issues we face can also be found in cities,
towns, and rural communities across this Nation. This proposal
will do much harm and provide no help to the families that need
it the most. The families' struggle will be compounded, and
kids will suffer. We can and must do better.
Thank you for the opportunity.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Thank you, Ms. Toney.
Mr. Adolphsen, you have five minutes.
STATEMENT OF SAM ADOLPHSEN, POLICY DIRECTOR, FOUNDATION FOR
GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY
Mr. Adolphsen. Chairman Krishnamoorthi, members of the
committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify this
morning.
Millionaires should not be eligible for food stamps.
Neither should someone with $20,000 in the bank, a new four-
wheeler or jet ski in the garage or the owner of private
aircraft. And state government should do basic checks to make
sure only the truly needy receive food stamps. This isn't
complicated or a conspiracy or even controversial. It's just
common sense. Food stamps are meant for the neediest Americans.
And I witnessed firsthand how an innocent sounding policy
like broad-based categorical eligibility, known as BBCE, can
open the door wide to fraud and abuse. When I was the chief
operating officer at the Maine Department of Health and Human
Services and oversaw food stamp eligibility, we struggled to
maintain integrity in the program because of BBCE. Someone on
welfare in Maine actually owned an airplane, and recently, a
millionaire detailed how easy it was for him to get welfare
benefits legally thanks to BBCE.
Congress did its job in setting eligibility standards for
the food stamp program, and Congress also had a good idea in
trying to reduce administrative duplication by allowing
automatic enrollment for some other welfare recipients. But
what Congress meant for good, bureaucrats used as a gimmick.
Rather than reduce administrative costs, the Clinton
Administration exploited the policy to maximize enrollment.
Here's how it works. Anyone who receives a brochure printed
with money from another welfare program is automatically
enrolled, with the ridiculous justification that it's the same
as receiving a real welfare benefit. And that loophole is so
bad today that the welfare office often deems applicants
eligible based on the possibility of receiving the so-called
benefit. They don't even receive that. Then, no one looks at a
bank account. There are no asset checks of any kind, and the
income limit is instantly expanded by nearly double in most
states, all with the wave of the magic welfare wand. It's the
epitome of welfare fraud and, unfortunately, it has the Federal
stamp of approval in more than 40 states.
The result is that millions of people with significant
assets who are ineligible according to law are on food stamps,
and many of these recipients have incomes up to double the
Federal poverty level. That means they could be eligible for
food stamps with nearly the same income level as the average
American household.
For the truly needy who depend on the food stamp program,
that just simply is not fair. And it's not fair to Congress who
wrote the law and made it clear that it does not want food
stamps for all but, rather, food stamps for those who truly
need them.
The administrative state should never have been allowed to
expand welfare beyond what Congress sanctioned, and the rule
put forward by the Trump administration will correct that
overreach.
Because this is such a practical change, those opposed to
closing this loophole have decided to pivot to talking points
about a program that is only loosely connected to food stamps:
the school lunch program. The truth is the real impact of this
rule on school lunches is virtually zero. In fact, in 34
States, not one single child will lose their school lunch
eligibility as a result of this rule. And in the other States,
a child eligible for free or reduced school lunch based on
their income level as set in Federal law will remain eligible
for free and reduced school lunch.
Very few, just 9,600 out of 30 million kids who receive
free or reduced school lunch, may need to pay their portion for
the school lunch because they used to be eligible only through
this loophole. There may be actually zero impact because kids
in continuing eligibility provision schools will continue to
get free lunches, regardless of their income or welfare
enrollment, with no eligibility process at all. Those schools
give universal free lunch today.
The Trump administration should be applauded for this
simple commonsense rule. Especially now in this booming
economy, it makes sense to close loopholes and government
gimmicks and transition adults and their families from welfare
to work, from government dependency to self-sufficiency, and
the American dream.
Thank you.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Thank you, Mr. Adolphsen.
I think the example, if that's true, that someone owned an
airplane and got food stamps, proves that SNAP's fraud
detection works. So I'm glad you brought up that example.
There are so many groups out there that want to see hungry
kids fed so that they can succeed, and they rose up in strong
support of this hearing. I'm going to seek unanimous consent to
enter letters into the record from seven of those groups. We're
proud to have received these following letters of support: One
from President Randi Weingarten of the American Federation of
Teachers; a letter from the U.S. Conference of Mayors, signed
by 70 U.S. mayors from both red and blue states, including
mayors in Texas, West Virginia, Ohio, and North Carolina; a
letter from 24 faith groups; a letter from MAZON: A Jewish
Response to Hunger; a letter from the Religious Action Center
of Reform Judaism; a letter from the National Women's Law
Center; a letter from the West Virginia Chamber of Commerce;
and a letter from a group of chefs who feed hungry kids through
the No Kid Hungry Campaign.
Without objection, so entered.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. I now recognize Ranking Member Cloud
for his opening statement.
Mr. Cloud. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you witnesses.
Let me first apologize for my tardiness. I was across town at
the National Prayer Breakfast, and with the President leaving,
we were locked in and so they could clear the roads. So I
apologize again. I do thank you for being here this morning to
talk about this important topic.
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, also known
as SNAP, provides nutritional assistance to low-income
Americans who cannot afford nutritional food for themselves and
their families. SNAP has always been designed to be a temporary
safety net to those who find themselves in a situation that
leaves them food insecure.
When speaking of welfare reform, then-President Bill
Clinton said, we need to transform a broken system that traps
too many people in a cycle of dependence to one that emphasizes
work and independence, to give people on welfare a chance to
draw a paycheck, not a welfare check, to give those on welfare
what we want for all families in America: The opportunity to
succeed at home and at work.
Last July, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the agency
that administers SNAP, issued a proposed rule regarding SNAP
categorical eligibility. Unfortunately, some bad actors in some
states, out of convenience, have taken advantage of loopholes
to circumvent the requirements for eligibility beyond what was
originally intended. This practice has allowed states to issue
SNAP benefits to individuals whose income may exceed
eligibility requirements.
And as the administration continues to examine ways to
reform government programs, I do think it's important for us to
keep in mind the country's current economic climate. Since
President Trump took office, the U.S. economy has created over
6 million jobs. The unemployment rate has dropped 3.5 percent,
the lowest it has been in this country in 50 years. In 2018,
the level of food insecurity in America dropped to 11.1
percent, the lowest level since 2007.
It could seem, judging by the title of today's hearing,
that some may argue that we should blame the President for the
number of school children no longer receiving free school
lunches. The truth is none of the administration's policy
proposals regarding SNAP have yet to go into effect. When they
do, however, 96 percent of children affected by the proposed
rule will remain on qual--would remain qualified for either
reduced priced or free meals under the National School Lunch
Program.
Importantly, all eligible children will continue to receive
reduced priced or free meals under the National School Lunch
Program. So, yes, one could say that the President is
responsible for the reduction, but not because of some
draconian, heartless policy that's gone into effect but,
rather, because the Trump economy is providing opportunity and
upward mobility across the demographic spectrum, freeing many
from reliance on the government.
Of course, there's still work to be done and there always
will be, but I hope we can have a productive conversation today
in good faith on how to ensure that the funds allocated for
these purposes are going to those truly in need. These
conversations, of course, are never easy. But if we can't have
these conversations now when so many are taking steps toward
financial independence, when can we?
Studies have shown that states are providing SNAP benefits
to 3 to 4 million individuals who do not meet basic eligibility
requirements. And let's remember that at least 96 percent of
those receiving school lunches would still be eligible should
this rule go into effect, with some studies showing even more.
I do think it's important today that we keep in mind what
real compassion is, because there's a great tendency among
politicians here in Washington, DC, to first convince
themselves and then try to convince the American people that
our virtue as public servants is measured by how much of their
money we spend. And we can often err in choosing to define
success by metrics that simply measure activity as opposed to
efficacy, or we can have real compassion that cares enough to
do the hard work and due diligence necessary to ensure that our
best intentions as Congress are actually producing the desired
outcomes.
And as we look to address the needs of our Nation, we have
a responsibility to be good stewards of the people's money.
That does mean from time to time that it's not only right but
also our duty to evaluate how programs are working and to make
adjustments to ensure that the investment our Nation is making
is, one, having the desired outcome and, two, being managed
efficiently.
Compassion takes in account both those in need as those
working to fulfill the need, and even more so those that will
come after us. As our Constitution states, our purpose is to
secure the blessings of liberty, not only for ourselves, but
also for our posterity.
Thank you, Chairman, and I yield back.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Thank you, Mr. Cloud.
I now recognize myself for five minutes of questioning.
Ms. Davis, it's our understanding that fraud is almost
nonexistent in SNAP. Can you explain that and tell us why SNAP
is so effective at preventing fraud, and would you mind
addressing Mr. Adolphsen's comments in that regard?
Ms. Davis. Thank you. I'd be happy to. SNAP has one of the
most effective antifraud records of any government program.
Less than one percent of benefits are paid improperly, and
there are criminal penalties for people who violate the law and
engage in criminal conduct, as there should be. The vast
majority of payments are paid to families that need them.
I think, you know, it's--one comment I'd like to make is
that this rule doesn't close a loophole. It slams a doorway out
of poverty shut for working families. I think we all share the
belief that a good job is the best way out of poverty and that
public assistance policies should foster and encourage work.
That's why this rule is so baffling, because broad-based
categorical eligibility does that as well as any other policy I
know of. Only .2 percent of SNAP benefits go to families with
net incomes over a hundred percent of poverty, and it is a
small percentage of the SNAP caseload that is affected by this.
In its own regulatory analysis, USDA noted that those that
would be most affected are working families with children who
have very high costs of housing and childcare. They also even
noted that the result would likely be an increase in food
insecurity and hardship, which is unacceptable.
Then finally, if I may, for just one more point, on the
school meal point, I'd like to clear up the facts.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Yes.
Ms. Davis. I take exception to the idea that virtually no
children will be harmed. Forty thousand kids will lose free and
reduced priced meals entirely, and for each one of those kids
that is a very big deal. More than half of those kids will move
from free meals to reduced price meals.
As Ms. Sullivan mentioned and our educators, and as we hear
every day, that might not seem a lot to all of us who are quite
comfortable, but to a family that is making tradeoffs between
paying for utilities or buying gas to get to work, that is a
very significant sum of money and can have a really profound
impact.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Well, Ms. Sullivan, let me allow you to
address this issue of fraud. I think that this comes up
repeatedly. Can you comment on this and, you know, Mr.
Adolphsen's comments in that regard too?
Ms. Sullivan. Absolutely.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. You have to press your button.
Ms. Sullivan. Yes. Thank you.
You know, this gentleman doesn't know me, but he assumes
that he does, and I believe he used the terms ``Here's how it
works.'' I can tell you from my perspective as a SNAP recipient
how it works.
But I think the biggest issue and the reason why there is
so much talk and rhetoric, there are assumptions about who we
are as people, is that we're not here in these rooms at these
tables. So, I would be happy to have a conversation, a followup
conversation, to really inform him of the realities.
And I understand that you've worked in a state
administration.
I think here's the thing. Nobody is going to deny that
fraud or waste or abuse doesn't exist. It is next to minimal.
But why are we focusing so much attention on that, especially
when it is such a small portion? What we need to be focused on
is families like mine who will be impacted. I am not a fraud. I
work. I do everything that I can to provide the best, just like
everybody in this room does. I want the best for my children
and feeding them healthy food is the foundation for them to
build. That's what we need to be focused on, the fact that this
takes food from them.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. I think there's a misconception that
you want to be on SNAP aid. What's your response to that?
Ms. Sullivan. My response is I absolutely do not. We have--
there's so much shame associated with that. You know, again----
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Tell us about that. Why is there shame
associated with using SNAP?
Ms. Sullivan. Because people will assume that because we
are accessing programs, that we are frauds, because there are
people that are out there spreading that type of
misinformation. We become political footballs in this game. Our
children, the most vulnerable, the least able to stand up and
defend themselves, are essentially being told to do your part,
you know, pay your way.
Listen, I work. I happen to live in a state that is one of
the most expensive in the country. Our energy costs are among
the highest. It is--we struggle, and we are hardly the only
ones. 3.1 million people about to lose benefits, and we know
that there's more. We the people that are being impacted need
to be in these spaces where these policies are being discussed
so that we can take back the narrative about ourselves. We know
who we are as people. We know our value in our communities and
to our families, and it's time that we control that
conversation and stop allowing people like this gentleman over
here to my left to control that narrative about us.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Mr. Cloud, you're recognized for five
minutes of questions. Oh, I'm sorry.
Ms. Miller, you are recognized for five minutes of
questioning.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you, Chairman Krishnamoorthi and Ranking
Member Cloud, for holding this very important hearing today.
And I want to thank Ms. Toney for being here. She's from West
Virginia, and it's nice to have another fellow West Virginian
in the room that recognizes the importance of keeping our
children and our families fed.
This topic is extremely personal and critical to my
district, and I want to recognize the fact that everyone who is
here today is committed to making sure that people who are
struggling receive the help that they need to live happy and
healthy lives. Additionally, adequate nutrition during infancy
and early childhood is essential for child development and
well-being.
The programs were created to help families and children who
are in great need. As I have said before in this committee, we
can disagree on what helps or what hurts, but our goals are the
same. And I support the administration for the work that they
have been doing to help guide families off of welfare, and I
will fight to make sure that benefits are given to the people
that need them. These are our children. We don't want them to
go hungry.
Mr. Adolphsen, how many children participate in the
National School Lunch Program annually?
Mr. Adolphsen. Approximately 30 million.
Mrs. Miller. Would school-age children who are statutorily
eligible for the program continue to qualify for reduced lunch
program priced meals?
Mr. Adolphsen. Yes, ma'am, they would.
Mrs. Miller. As I mentioned in my testimony, this issue is
extremely important in my district. I mean, our--West Virginia
has struggled. The proposed rule does not affect the
eligibility requirements for child nutrition programs. Is that
correct?
Mr. Adolphsen. It does not directly affect the eligibility
as laid out for that program in law.
Mrs. Miller. OK. In the State of the Union Address on
Tuesday, the President highlighted that 7 million Americans
have come off of food stamps. This number is exciting when it
means that there are people who are now financially stable and
can provide for their families. In Fiscal Year 2017, there were
an estimated 42.2 million monthly SNAP participants. In Fiscal
Year 2020, participants estimated that there were 36.4 million.
That's a big difference.
In your opinion, is it safe to assume that the 7 million
off of food stamps are a result of a stronger economy?
Mr. Adolphsen. Oh, there's no question about it. A record
number of open jobs, record number of people going back to
work. There have also been reforms done at the state level that
have helped spur this change. Work requirements have come back
into effect in a number of states, and we've seen great results
with people moving from welfare to work and back into the work
force.
Mrs. Miller. I'd like to hear more about your time that you
spent in the Maine Department of Health and Human Services. You
oversaw operations for their welfare programs. What were the
most important key takeaways from your experience, and how do
they relate to today's discussion?
Mr. Adolphsen. Sure. Thank you for that question. Just as
it relates to BBCE, I can tell you a little bit more about what
I saw and why this has this connection to fraud.
When someone is approved through BBCE, and 97 percent of
all people on food stamps in BBCE states are approved through
BBCE, there is no asset check at all. So, what happens is
information that would normally be available to you as an
agency to determine and verify their status, household
composition, income sources, other things like that, the agency
does not even look at at all. So, the challenge there is it
opens the door to fraud, as I mentioned. The GAO said people
who come in through BBCE are three times more likely to have
errors. And in 2011, the Obama Administration actually stopped
looking at BBCE cases for payment errors. So, that isn't even
reflected in this percentage of fraud that folks are
referencing.
Mrs. Miller. How many people would that be?
Mr. Adolphsen. Well, it's hard to come up with an exact
number because we don't check assets now. So just a quick
example, the largest fraud case in Maine history, over $200,000
a woman stole. She didn't report that her husband lived with
her. Well, she was on the program through BBCE, and so her
assets weren't checked. When they later found this fraud
through a report, they looked at her bank accounts and her
husband was listed as a joint owner of the bank account. That
was fraud that could have been caught had we checked things
like assets at the front door, which BBCE does not allow.
Mrs. Miller. OK. I yield back my time.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Thank you.
I think that we should always make sure to check 100
percent of the witnesses' statistics at this point for their
validity.
Let me turn the questioning over to Chairwoman Maloney for
five minutes of questioning.
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank all of you
for sharing your testimony today.
In your opening statements, you detailed how vital SNAP is
to combat hunger in this Nation. So, I'm stunned that the Trump
administration is taking action that will result in 3.1 million
individuals losing their SNAP eligibility.
Ms. Davis, while food insecurity is a very personal and
intimate issue that a family may face, it's unfortunately not
uncommon in our country. How many people across this country
experience food insecurity each year?
Ms. Davis. According to the latest data from USDA, more
than 37 million people live in food-insecure households in the
U.S. That includes 11.3 million children or one in seven of our
Nation's kids. People living with food insecurity are found in
every county, in every congressional district across our
Nation, urban, suburban, and rural.
And while that number is still much, much too high, I would
point out that child food insecurity has declined to the lowest
point since 1998, and that is due in large part by actions
taken by previous administrations and bipartisan congressional
access to strengthen access to SNAP for families with children.
Mrs. Maloney. OK. What is the long-term consequences to a
child's health and well-being if they experience food
insecurity in childhood?
Ms. Davis. Those consequences are very profound. Food-
insecure children have higher rates of poor mental and physical
health. They're more likely to be hospitalized, to suffer from
common illnesses like stomach aches and colds, asthma.
Adolescents experiencing food insecure face a host of mental
health issues and are at a much greater risk for depression and
other mental health problems, including suicidal ideation.
A report published by the Center on the Developing Child at
Harvard University highlights nutrition as a key foundational
pillar for healthy child development. Food access and intake
are critical issues that do impact a child's lifelong health
trajectory, and the cognitive delays that food-insecure
children face put them behind their peers at kindergarten and
for years to come.
Mrs. Maloney. Yet instead of proposing measures that would
help to reduce food insecurity in this Nation, the
administration has proposed a new rule that takes SNAP benefits
away from 3.1 million children and people.
Ms. Sullivan, you are a mother, and I can only imagine the
struggle that you face to provide food for your children each
day. Can you explain how important SNAP has been to your
children?
Ms. Sullivan. Absolutely. You know, there have been times
as a parent, you know, there's probably no worse feeling that
you could experience than putting your children to bed on an
empty belly. And I think back to those times where I've been
there, and I was, as a breastfeeding mother, unable to take in
calories on my--for myself to then produce enough milk to
sustain my newborn daughter at the time, who then as a result
of the physical impacts of not taking in enough calories, she
herself was--had to then attend physical and occupational
therapy to rebound. This--we're talking about a newborn.
So, in the times when SNAP has been available to me,
because one thing--let me just make one thing clear. Normally,
families--I have myself--I will wait until the very last
minute, because there's nothing--to me, it is a very traumatic
experience to walk into a state office and ask for assistance,
and it's a reminder of you've hit rock bottom. You're--you
know, just of the intense trauma of the moment.
In those times when I've been able to access SNAP benefits
that we're eligible for, I am able to provide for my family.
Again, doing what we all want to do. Healthy snacks that my
children are able to grab on their, you know, their way from
school to work to their activities. Literally just having
enough food to put on the table. So many times, I have
literally cried myself to sleep, and I know I am not alone in
this. There are millions of us out there, because I didn't eat
myself that day and was uncertain of how I would feed my
children the next day. And this is the reality, the reality
that so many of us face.
Mrs. Maloney. Ms. Toney, and Principal Pethan, how would
the administration's proposal affect the ability of the
children in your school to come to school ready to learn?
Ms. Toney. Thank you for your question, Congresswoman. Our
kids, in order to be their best selves in school, need to come
with a full belly and with the knowledge and the thought that
they will be food secure. Academically, students learn best
when they feel secure in their food, when they are not
experiencing a thought of where will my next meal come from?
What am I going to face when I go home? Will there be food at
home? They come to school for the meal, many of the students in
my district do.
And if we are talking about making them academically
successful, physically successful, emotionally successful, and
mentally successful, food security plays a large role in the
bigger picture of that through a lot of different ways, through
the stigmatization that Mr. Pethan had spoken about in his oral
testimony, to the academic well-being, the physical well-being,
being healthy enough to be in the classroom, to not miss class
for doctors' appointments or hospitalizations or anything like
that.
Food insecurity plays such an important role in the larger
picture, and we oftentimes look at it as a secondary thing, but
it is absolutely not. I'm here to say it is a primary concern
among the people in my district, because I've heard a lot of
talking points today about a booming economy. I live--I've been
born, raised, and lived my adult life in the Third
congressional District of West Virginia. We are one of the
poorest congressional districts in the Nation. And I'm here to
tell you that in my rural areas, the economy is not booming,
and the kids need this help. These--we talk about bootstraps.
These are the boots for these kids. This is the help they need.
Thank you.
Mrs. Maloney. My time has expired. I yield back.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Thank you. Thank you, Chairwoman.
I'd now like to recognize Ranking Member Cloud for five
minutes of questioning.
Mr. Cloud. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
If I could just start off by saying, Ms. Sullivan, and to
the rest of you all, I mentioned that I appreciate you all
being here. Ms. Sullivan, I just wanted to specifically say I
appreciate you being here, and I hope you don't feel shame.
That's why it's there. That's why the program's there, and I do
think it takes courage to be here today to tell your story;
So I do think and, honestly--I realize in the polarized
environment that you're walking in from what you see on TV, a
lot of times people walk into these situations with entrenched
positions, but I do think there are those of us who are working
to find a way to preserve the program for those who really need
it, while also finding that nexus where we can also deal with
issues to streamline and make it more efficient. And I think
that's a good, honest conversation to have.
Mr. Adolphsen--did I pronounce that right? OK. Now, this is
a little wonky. We just heard that this rule changes SNAP. Is
that actually right or is that--could you--could you clarify
the connection, because it's not really as direct as it's
being----
Mr. Adolphsen. Sure. Yes, sir. So the rule that's being
discussed is a change to SNAP, not to the school lunch program.
The SNAP eligibility standards as set in Federal law, as have
been mentioned, you cannot have income over 130 percent of the
Federal poverty level, and you cannot have liquid assets
available to you, cash, recreational vehicles, things you could
quickly liquidate to cash in excess of 2250--$2,250. So, the
broad-based categorical eligibility loophole does away with
that asset test, and it raises the income threshold to up to
200 percent in most states and up to 185 percent or 165 percent
in other states.
Where the school lunch comes into play is that if you're on
SNAP, you're automatically eligible for school lunch with no
application. That's what some folks are talking about, that
there's a group of students who may have to apply with a school
lunch application. I grabbed one here from the state of Maine.
It's one page. They may have to apply through that application,
but they will still maintain their eligibility. It just won't
be automatic.
Mr. Cloud. And you--it was also stated that 3 million
people would lose SNAP benefits, but it's actually--could you
explain the difference between losing eligibility versus
actually losing benefits?
Mr. Adolphsen. Sure. So there--right now, there are
approximately 5 million people who are ineligible by Federal
law standards, and when this loophole is closed and broad-based
categorical eligibility, that pathway is closed, it will go
back to categorical eligibility. If you're actually receiving a
welfare benefit, you will still be automatically eligible for
food stamps. That is not changing.
The only thing that's changing is you can't get this
brochure handed to you and, thus, getting rid of the asset test
and increasing the income limit. That piece of it will go away.
Then we'll go back to the Federal standards that are in law
that Congress passed of both income and asset limits.
Mr. Cloud. So, to rephrase it, you're basically saying that
the executive branch is working to realign regulations with the
stated will of Congress as passed in law?
Mr. Adolphsen. That's correct. The BBCE rule was created
entirely through regulation. At the time, the Clinton
Administration even acknowledged that the intent was to expand
this to people who are actually getting a benefit, not just
receiving--or in many cases, not even receiving a marginal, you
know, TANF-funded brochure. And they acknowledged that at the
time, but it has taken on a life of its own, obviously, as 42
states are using it, and millions of folks have come in through
that pathway.
So, this rule simply reorients the eligibility policy at
the practical level on the ground with what Congress actually
passed in law.
Mr. Cloud. OK. And so constitutionally, the proper way to
fix this would be for Congress to act if it wants to change
this rule?
Mr. Adolphsen. Absolutely. And I mentioned in my remarks,
if you want to give everyone in the country food stamps, you
have the authority to do that. Pass a law and get it signed
into law, and that certainly can take effect. But as the law
stands right now, this regulation sits squarely outside of it,
and it's really incumbent upon the administration to correct
that.
Mr. Cloud. OK. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. I'm going to use that five seconds.
Ms. Davis, okay, so basically, what's going is that they
want to make a uniform $2,250 asset test for the entire United
States, and they want to say that no state can raise the income
level beyond 130 percent of the poverty line, which is uniform
for the entire United States.
Can you--you know, can you comment on that and why states
would actually want to raise the income levels and asset test
depending on what part of the country you live in? New York
City versus West Virginia, for instance.
Ms. Davis. Yes. Thank you. First, it's easy to focus on
things like, you know, a brochure gets you on to SNAP, which
isn't true. Receiving a brochure guarantees no one SNAP
benefits. Anyone coming in through broad-based categorical
eligibility still has to go through an interview. They still
have to document their income and comply with all of the other
program requirements. And there are indeed many people who
might be categorically eligible for SNAP, but their net incomes
are too high to get a benefit.
Congress intended to give states flexibility during welfare
reform, and that is well documented. They also intended to
encourage work and to encourage efficiency across programs, two
things that broad-based categorical eligibility does very well.
And one thing that is very important to understand, with talk
of millionaires and people with airplanes, is that this policy
helps working poor families with children who have incomes
modestly above 130 percent of poverty, gross incomes, before
deductions for things like high housing costs, high childcare
costs, high out-of-pocket medical costs are deducted. And only
.2 percent of SNAP benefits are going to people with net after
those deduction incomes above 130 percent of poverty. So, it's
not an automatic gateway. It isn't a policy benefiting
millionaires, and it supports and encourages work.
And as you know, housing costs in Boston are very different
from housing costs in Great Falls, Montana, where I'm from.
Childcare costs are high everywhere. In many states, care for
an infant can cost more per year than in-state intuition for
college. So, states need this flexibility, and it helps them
make work pay for their population.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Thank you.
I would now recognize Congresswoman Porter for five minutes
of questioning.
Ms. Porter. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Adolphsen, how much do you pay each month for
electricity and how often?
Mr. Adolphsen. How often? Each month. You know, I could get
my phone out and check exactly, but it's probably about----
Ms. Porter. Would you?
Mr. Adolphsen. Probably about $180 to $200 a month,
depending on how many lights the kids leave on.
Ms. Porter. Tell me about your children. How many do you
have, may I ask?
Mr. Adolphsen. I have three children.
Ms. Porter. Are they school age?
Mr. Adolphsen. They are not. One of them is in
kindergarten.
Ms. Porter. And the other two are younger, correct?
How much and how often do you pay for sewer?
Mr. Adolphsen. Once every four years when the septic truck
comes to clean it out.
Ms. Porter. How much and how often do you pay for house
insurance or mortgage insurance?
Mr. Adolphsen. Could you repeat that? Sorry.
Ms. Porter. How much and how often do you pay for
homeowners' insurance?
Mr. Adolphsen. Let's see. That's once a year I purchase
that policy.
Ms. Porter. How many hours did you work weekly last week?
Mr. Adolphsen. I don't know.
Ms. Porter. What is your hourly rate? Do you--let me ask
you this, because I don't want to invade your privacy. Do you
know your hourly rate of pay as you sit here today?
Mr. Adolphsen. Yes, ma'am, I know how much I get paid.
Ms. Porter. Hourly?
Mr. Adolphsen. I do not get paid hourly.
Ms. Porter. But do--but you're going to need to know that,
so do you know right now how much----
Mr. Adolphsen. Well----
Ms. Porter [continuing]. you get paid calculated on an
hourly basis?
Mr. Adolphsen [continuing]. with all due respect, what does
this have to do with the broad-based categorical eligibility?
Ms. Porter. I respect--I actually get to ask the questions,
with all due respect, and you either can answer them or refuse
to answer them, which is your prerogative.
What is your--do you know your gross pay before deductions?
Mr. Adolphsen. I do.
Ms. Porter. Do you know what day of the week your paycheck
is received on?
Mr. Adolphsen. Yes, I do.
Ms. Porter. What day is that?
Mr. Adolphsen. I'm not going to answer that.
Ms. Porter. OK. Let's go through. Do you know whether you
own any certificates of deposit?
Mr. Adolphsen. I know my financial situation quite well.
Ms. Porter. How about your account number for your IRA,
401(k)?
Mr. Adolphsen. My account number? No, I don't have that
handy, but I could get it in about 11 seconds.
Ms. Porter. Tick tock. I'll wait.
Mr. Adolphsen. I'm going to be respectful and keep my phone
in my pocket as we're asked to do.
Ms. Porter. OK. The reason I'm asking you all these things,
Mr. Adolphsen, is I want to show you what the Maine
application--the state of Maine's application for food
supplement looks like for SNAP.
Mr. Adolphsen. Yes, ma'am. I ran that program for four
years.
Ms. Porter. OK. This is a six-page application for SNAP. I
asked you a handful of these questions. To fill all of this
out--there's so many pages, I'm dropping them. I apologize.
This is a handful of what you would have to fill out. This is
information that is much more extensive than, for example, I am
required to provide in my congressionally mandated financial
disclosures as a Member of the House of Representatives to the
American public.
Are you aware--let me ask you this question. Does the
research--what does the research say about what happens when
you increase the paperwork and informational burdens on
applications for things like SNAP or cash benefits? What does
the research say?
Mr. Adolphsen. I'm not sure what research you're referring
to, Representative.
Ms. Porter. The research conducted by folks like elders for
fear and others about what happens when you make the paperwork
application burden longer. What happens to eligibility?
Mr. Adolphsen. Well, I can tell you my experience in Maine
administering the program was that the vast majority of
applications were completed online or on the telephone, not
through paper application, and we actually, under my watch,
undertook a process to streamline that even further so that it
would be easy for folks to get on the computer. We set up
kiosks right in the regional offices where we provided
computers and support for people.
Ms. Porter. Are those offices open on nights or weekends?
Mr. Adolphsen. Yes. We had night and weekend hours. We
actually changed our staffing rotation to give two nights of
the week----
Ms. Porter. That's great.
Mr. Adolphsen [continuing]. where we stayed open into the
evening.
Ms. Porter. That's really--I really commend that. I think
that's really important.
With that, I'll yield back.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Thank you, Congresswoman.
You know, Ms. Davis, do you want to comment on the
application forms? What type of burden does that place on
applicants depending on the length of the questioning in the--
in the forms?
Ms. Davis. A number of studies show that the more
questions, the longer the form, the less likely people are to
get through the process. And there have been several points
today about how many of the kids who will lose direct
certification through SNAP will still be eligible by filing an
application. I think if you talk to any school district around
the country, they will tell you that that is a challenge.
In this case, USDA itself has admitted that they do not
have a plan to inform those impacted and to reach out to them
to let them know their kids will be ineligible--will be
eligible. I think for families that are losing SNAP and their
kids are dropping out of free meals, they may assume that they
are no longer eligible. Paperwork complexity, human error,
stigma, there are so many barriers. And because so many kids
fall through the cracks and those paper applications aren't
getting done accurately or getting done at all, Congress
mandated the states to do direct certification between SNAP and
school meals, because it's more accurate, it's more efficient,
and it's more effective for catching those kids.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Thank you, Ms. Davis.
Without objection, Congressman Sarbanes shall be permitted
to join the subcommittee and be recognized for questioning
witnesses later.
Right now, I recognize Congressman Comer for five minutes
of questioning.
Mr. Comer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And my questions are going to be centered around the Able-
Bodied Adults Without Dependents Rule for Mr. Adolphsen. And
I--let me--I apologize for the questions you got earlier. I
don't know what the purpose of those were, but unfortunately,
the civility and common sense in Congress is a--sometimes in a
downward spiral here. It doesn't help when the Speaker of the
House rips up the State of the Union right behind the President
after he gives his remarks, but that's for another day. That's
for another day. That's--if anyone disagrees with that, we can
debate that here, but let's get back to what's important, and
that's governing.
With respect to the new rule, before the December 2019 USDA
rule on SNAP work requirements, how were states taking
advantage of the waiver systems as it relates to work
requirements for able-bodied adults without dependents?
Mr. Adolphsen. Sure. Thank you. So on the ABAWD rule, what
states were doing was they were taking counties in various
areas that had fairly low unemployment and they were grouping
them with other unrelated counties that had high unemployment,
higher unemployment, and they were getting permission to waive
those work requirements kind of across the board. In
California, for example, statewide waiver even among counties
with two and three percent unemployment.
Mr. Comer. How many states were waiving the work
requirement?
Mr. Adolphsen. More than 30, depending on what time period
you pick.
Mr. Comer. So how does the 2019 USDA rule seek to clarify
and update work requirements for able-bodied adults without
dependents?
Mr. Adolphsen. Sure. For those 18-to 49-year-old able-
bodied adults with no kids, what the rule does is it simply
changes the criteria to be more in line with Federal law, which
says that an area that has high unemployment can receive a
waiver. And so, what the rule does very generally is it makes
sure that those waivers can only apply in specific areas that
actually do have an economic depression or downturn.
Mr. Comer. OK. So, during your time with the Maine
Department of Health and Human Services, how significant was
the implementation of work requirements?
Mr. Adolphsen. From an administrative perspective, it was
no more difficult than really any of the changes that we often
receive from our legislature or through regulation. We did some
work to make sure that folks had a place to go to education and
training, if they chose to do that, and we worked with our
department of labor to set up those career center one-stops and
those types of things.
Mr. Comer. Let me ask you this. Have you seen where the
implementation of work requirements could have actually helped
SNAP recipients?
Mr. Adolphsen. Absolutely. We've seen that really in states
across the country. Florida, Mississippi, Arkansas come to
mind. We've done studies there following each individual person
who work requirements applied to. Incomes more than doubled in
a year. Folks went back to work in hundreds of different
industries, and they're doing much better now earning more and
enough to replace the benefit and more.
Mr. Comer. Right. Could you explain how USDA's December
2019 work requirement rule seeks to ensure SNAP recipients
achieve self-sufficiency?
Mr. Adolphsen. Yes. The bottom line is we've got one of the
greatest economies that we've had in decades, and we have
nearly 7 million open jobs. And USDA looked at these waivers
and said we really need these folks, able-bodied, to get into
these jobs. Get off the sidelines and into the work force. It
helps them and it helps our economy.
Mr. Comer. That's exactly right. And the biggest complaint
that I hear from job creators and business owners in my
congressional district and throughout Kentucky, for that
matter, is the fact that they cannot expand their business,
they're not going to invest additional capital because they
don't have confidence that they can fill the open positions
that would be created.
And we already have, in my district, which is a poor
district, tens of thousands of jobs open right now. And if you
poll the people, the working people of my district, and ask
them do you support work requirements for able-bodied adults
that receive any type of welfare benefit, that would poll close
to 100 percent.
So this is something that I appreciate the administration
trying to adopt, and anything I can do to see that this
happens, I'm certainly going to do it because that's what the
people of my district want.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Thank you. I'm just going to use that
time.
Ms. Toney, 43 of 55 counties provide free meals to all
students in West Virginia, thanks to categorical eligibility.
What is the cost of letting these kids goes hungry instead?
Ms. Toney. We're talking about human capital, and we're
talking about actual people. We're not talking about data on a
spreadsheet or we're not number crunching. The cost is immense.
And if we let these kids go hungry, we're playing reckless with
their well-being and with their future as well, because
honestly, this is the future of our country and we're leading
by example.
Academically, these students need this. They need the
nourishment for their brains to be able to focus, to be able to
be attentive in class. And I outlined in my opening statement,
if they are not attentive in class and if they are unfocused,
they fall behind, which leads to behavior issues. And we all
know the statistics on children who fall behind in class and
who are subject to behavior issues and how that affects them in
their long-term longevity in the school system, not to mention
the emotional well-being, the mental well-being.
And I am proud of my district for what we've done with our
universal feeding program, because we have removed a lot of the
stigmatization that surrounds students that can afford lunch
versus students who may be on a free or reduced lunch plan.
However, that is not necessarily--that is the exception, and
that is not the rule for districts across the Nation. And we
really have to remember that we are looking at people; we are
not looking at numbers on a spreadsheet.
Thank you for the question.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Thank you. And that question was from
the West Virginia Chamber of Commerce.
Now I'd like to recognize Congresswoman Tlaib for five
minutes of questions.
Ms. Tlaib. Thank you so much, Chairman. Thank you so much
for your leadership and having a hearing on a really critical
issue I think in our country right now.
Ms. Sullivan, yesterday, one of my residents texted me:
Speak the truth even if your voice shakes. And I just want you
to know I appreciated you speaking up. You spoke to--about
something that I think is very important. And as a former
community organizer, one of the things we do is make sure that
we bring people in the room that can't be in the room. And when
you spoke up, you did that. So, thank you so much.
I want to ask a question for all of you. Do you think
children can learn if they're hungry? Ms. Davis.
Ms. Davis. Absolutely not. I think if you ask any teacher
in this country or any parent, kids can't come to school hungry
to learn if they're just plain hungry. And we do a survey of
teachers every year, and what we find is that three out of four
teachers say that they regularly teach kids who are coming to
school hungry. And the data bears that out too.
Ms. Tlaib. So yes or no, Principal Pethan?
Mr. Pethan. Absolutely not. I think everybody has been
hungry at one point in their life, regardless of age, and it's
very difficult to focus if you're an adult, but much less more
so if you're a young child at six years old and you're trying
to figure out what's going on in class. And if you don't have a
stable meal in your belly when you come into school, it makes
it extremely difficult.
And I would even argue that it--even if it does affect
many, many students or if it's just one child in your class, as
a teacher, as I'm sure Ms. Toney can explain, it takes one
child sometimes that's hungry that can disrupt a class that
affects all of the students in the classroom as well.
Ms. Tlaib. And I'm sorry because of the time, but yes or
no?
Ms. Sullivan. Unequivocally no.
Ms. Tlaib. Ms. Toney.
Ms. Toney. Resoundingly no. Hunger is painful, and students
cannot bear that burden.
Ms. Tlaib. How about you? Can children learn if they're
hungry, yes or no?
Mr. Adolphsen. Not my kindergartner.
Ms. Tlaib. OK. There's been a lot of discussion about, you
know, assistance, public assistance and so forth and this kind
of, you know, trying to prevent fraud. You know, this always
come up. And I want to tell you all, in downtown Detroit right
now, I have the third poorest congressional district. They--the
politicians, the elected folks there decided to shift $400
million away from school aid fund to an adult playground
downtown. It's a hockey stadium. $400 million away from school
aid fund into a for-profit hockey stadium for a billion dollar
development. A billionaire was building it.
In exchange, the promise was, to qualify, to be able to say
give them the green light to do it, is to hire 50 percent local
residents to develop the 39 lots they got for a dollar in
downtown Detroit. At the end, they didn't do any of those
things. Broken promises.
Do you think that's fraud, Ms. Davis? Yes or no.
Ms. Davis. I don't know that I'm qualified to speak on the
specifics----
Ms. Tlaib. Principal Pethan, does that sound like fraud to
you, that they took public dollars, $400 million away from
school aid in exchange for promises they made that they were
going to do to help benefit the whole community and the public
because they subsidized their stadium?
Mr. Pethan. I can say that's a promise broken, and if we
did that at our school, we would be subject to fraud.
Ms. Tlaib. Well, if you were on food assistance, Ms.
Sullivan, they would take it away and probably make you pay.
Ms. Sullivan. Sounds like fraud to me.
Ms. Tlaib. Yes. How about you, Ms. Toney?
Ms. Toney. It sounds like fraudulent behavior and immoral
behavior.
Ms. Tlaib. Exactly. How about you, sir?
Mr. Adolphsen. Yes, ma'am. It sounds like fraud to me.
Ms. Tlaib. Absolutely. Do you know what we could have done
with that $400 million? Not only feed children, but we could
have funded 218 new teachers in the Detroit public school
system, where we had a deficit of 200 teachers before the
school year began. That's what we're doing. But we do not talk
about them as committing fraud.
When moms accidentally don't bring in their wage stuff. You
know, I get calls all the time. I didn't--I didn't submit the
documents in time. Can you help me? Or, you know, this was off,
or they were doing an asset test on a car that they got from
their mother, all of that. Ding, ding, it's fraud. Where a
company that is making billions of dollars and selling concert
tickets, everything. We're literally--Cass Tech High School in
my district, that is--you can see it from the stadium, down the
street from the stadium. We had to shut down the drinking
fountains because the water is contaminated.
These are the things that we're doing. We're shifting away
these public dollars that could be used to feed children,
because they cannot learn if they're hungry. But we don't call
that fraud. We call a mother trying to feed her children and do
everything possible to do it. And sometimes--I mean, it's food.
It is food. Not fur coats. Not a membership to a golf course.
It is food for your children. Food for your family. It is food.
And I'm tired of us treating them completely differently,
especially when it's a billion-dollar development that just
makes more money off of the backs of our kids.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, and I hope you all continue
to speak truth. I think it's critically important. Thank you
very much.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Thank you, Congresswoman.
I now recognize Congressman Khanna for five minutes of
questioning.
Mr. Khanna. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Sullivan, I was struck by your testimony, particularly
this line: Shall I revert to the days when I would casually
pass up an opportunity to eat today so that my children have a
better chance of eating tomorrow?
If you don't mind, could you speak about times in your life
that you may have had to do that?
Ms. Sullivan. Yes. Thank you. And I do hope that other
members of the committee do have the time and the opportunity
to read through my full written testimony.
It was a challenge for me. It forces me to relive these
very traumatic experiences. And honestly, I think some of it
I've kind of blocked out, to the best of my ability. And
that's, again, the reality of what so many of us deal with.
You know, there have been those times when I've looked--
I've prepared the best of what I could for a meal, and I'm a
great cook, and I've had to ration out food. And as I rationed
it out, I'm looking at the plate of one child and the other and
sort of based on age and where they are and what I feel that
they need for nourishment was, again, rationing out this food,
and then it gets to me, and of course, as a parent, you put
yourself last. And that's not, you know, singular to me. It's
what we do as parents, as providers.
And so there have been on numerous occasions--you know,
SNAP has come into my life in times of need, and then I've been
able to walk away. I'm--I've been sometimes what's called a
churner. I've been on and off the program, and it's helped--
it's done exactly what it's been intended to do. But as I said,
as parents, there is shame associated with it, when we are
walking into these spaces where basically the police are trying
to keep us from accessing these programs that are intended to
assist us, and we're looked at as a fraud before somebody in
need.
And I can't speak enough to what that does to a person's--
you know, of course, we can imagine and envision what
physically that does to a person, but mentally what it does to
a parent who is, again, just trying to provide the best for
their children.
Mr. Khanna. Thank you for sharing such a personal story.
Mr. Adolphsen, if Ms. Sullivan came to you and she said
she's at 140 percent of Federal poverty line, and she told you
her story, would you believe that she should get food stamps?
Yes or no.
Mr. Adolphsen. I would follow the eligibility standards.
Mr. Khanna. So if she came to you and she said, look, I'm
having to skip meals and my kids are--otherwise, my kids would
go hungry and I need this, and you believed it to be true, but
it's 140 percent over the Federal poverty line, you would say
no, she doesn't qualify?
Mr. Adolphsen. You know, personally, I would help, if I
could----
Mr. Khanna. While you were administrating Maine. I'm just
saying, did--were these the type of cases? If someone came to
you, if they were 140 percent, would you say yes, or would you
say no?
Mr. Adolphsen. Well, with BBCE, she would be eligible, so I
would--I would say yes.
Ms. Sullivan. I would not.
Mr. Adolphsen. But under the Federal law, food stamp
eligibility, she would be ineligible.
Mr. Khanna. I mean, you would--so what the Trump
administration is doing is trying to make her ineligible, and
you would support that. You would--you would think that someone
like Ms. Sullivan shouldn't get food stamps.
I just want to be clear because, you know, I saw your
testimony on private planes and all that. Let's just be honest
here. I mean, that's not what we're talking about. We're
talking about whether someone like Ms. Sullivan, who is at 140
percent of poverty line, should get food stamps or not. Now, if
you want to say that no, she shouldn't, at least that's an
honest answer. And that's--you know, we could just have a
difference of values, but let's be very clear about that
position.
Mr. Adolphsen. Sir, I'm being honest, and the broad-based
categorical eligibility loophole that's being closed by this
rule, as I mentioned in my testimony, is much more about assets
than income. And you heard from several testimonies that income
is the smaller piece of this particular rule, and I'm being
completely honest about what this rule does. And as a state
administrator, you don't make individual determinations----
Mr. Khanna. Let me just ask one question. My time is
running up. If I could just finish. How much money would this
rule save the Federal Government?
Mr. Adolphsen. Several billion dollars.
Mr. Khanna. How much exactly?
Mr. Adolphsen. It depends on the final----
Mr. Khanna. What's your estimate?
Mr. Adolphsen. That has not come out yet.
Mr. Khanna. So, I mean--so you're basically saying for 2 to
$3 billion, you don't even how much it would save, which is
less than one percent of our defense budget, you would deprive
millions of Ms. Sullivan of food. I mean, that--just so we have
our priorities. I mean, that's basically your policy argument
to this committee?
Mr. Adolphsen. This is about preserving the resources for
the truly needy who are eligible by Federal law.
Mr. Khanna. Which is less than one percent of our defense
budget to deprive, you know, probably a million people like Ms.
Sullivan of food.
Mr. Adolphsen. I'm not prepared to discuss the defense
budget at this food stamp hearing.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. OK. Thank you, Mr. Khanna.
I now recognize Congressman Grothman for five minutes of
questioning.
Mr. Grothman. Yes. I kind of want to go over this one more
time. Could you one more time give us an overview of this--of
the categorical eligibility and how it came about?
Mr. Adolphsen. Certainly. So categorical eligibility is
allowed in Federal food stamp law. It says if you are receiving
a welfare benefit, you are automatically eligible to be
enrolled in the food stamp program. That was Congress' effort
to cut down on administrative and applicant burden. Fine.
What happened was the Clinton Administration came in, and
they expanded that to broad-based categorical eligibility that
said a welfare benefit can be as simple as getting a brochure.
You don't have to get an actual benefit from this other welfare
program. And by doing that, the income limit is then raised
from 130 of the Federal poverty level up to 200 percent of the
Federal poverty level, and the asset test is completely
eliminated through that process.
Mr. Grothman. OK. And do you know off the top of your head
what 200 percent of Federal poverty is? I used to know these
numbers. I can't remember them.
Mr. Adolphsen. It's in the mid $30,000 range.
Mr. Grothman. OK. And the asset test, just like on other
things, means you can be a millionaire and eligible for the
program?
Mr. Adolphsen. Yes. It ranges widely. We know from USDA
data that half of these individuals have more than $20,000 in
liquid assets.
Mr. Grothman. Is there any downside that you can think of
to giving--to putting people on the--the lunch program, other
than just cost?
Mr. Adolphsen. Any downside to putting people on the school
lunch program?
Mr. Grothman. Correct.
Mr. Adolphsen. As long as it complies with the standards
that Congress set for the program, I see no problem with it.
Mr. Grothman. OK. Other than cost.
Mr. Pethan, I'm wondering if you could comment on your
experience.
Mr. Pethan. Yes. What I've seen with the program is that
it's been very successful. In our school, we have about 57
percent of our students are coming from direct certification,
which means they qualify for a SNAP benefit from a number of
things, including household income. What we've seen and since
we've been participating in the CEP program is that it has had
a direct impact in the amount of meals that have served. In
2014 and 2015, before we had the program, we only had about 64
percent participation in the meals that we had offered. And
then all the way up to this year, we've had about 96 percent
participation.
So even though we did have free and reduced lunch
applications in the past that students could qualify for a free
or reduced meal, now we've seen a higher participation, and as
a result, a direct impact on our student behavior issues.
Mr. Grothman. OK. What I was trying to get at, Mr.
Adolphsen, is sometimes it's said that when you give more
benefits, it kind of affects the parents, because they have
less--less responsibility for their children. I guess I'll put
it that way. And it's good if you have more, I guess, buy-in on
your children's upbringing.
Do you see any of that or does that argument appeal to you
at all?
Mr. Adolphsen. Well, as the parent of children, I certainly
want to be involved in their upbringing and taking care of
them. I think what we're talking about, though, is for folks
who are on SNAP through BBCE, they either have incomes that are
in excess of the Federal limit that was set or they have
resources that are available to them to take care of themselves
and their families without the benefit.
Mr. Grothman. I guess what I'm trying to get at, are there
benefits to giving parents responsibility other than just
monetary benefits to the Federal Government? And understand
we're running almost a trillion dollar a year deficit, so I
don't mean to minimize the cost savings. We should always be
looking for the cost savings. But you read stuff about it kind
of affecting parents as the government assumes more and more of
that parental role.
Mr. Adolphsen. Absolutely. I don't think anyone would
disagree that all the literature supports that active
involvement in their children's lives by the parents is
critical to their success.
Mr. Grothman. OK. I'll yield the remainder of my time.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Thank you.
I think that the trillion dollar deficit was caused by the
2017 tax law that added almost a trillion dollars to our
deficit. It's not a couple billion dollars due to SNAP
benefits.
With regard to Mr. Pethan, can you please comment on what
this change is going to do to the administration of your school
in Wisconsin, in Sheboygan?
Mr. Pethan. Yes. So we have--like I said in my opening
testimony, we do have one of the lowest percentages of
unemployment in the country, and we're very proud of that.
However, a lot of our parents are not accessing that same
economy. And when we talk about jobs, I think it's fair to
mention that there is a difference in the quality of job or the
pay that parents are eligible for. Certainly, there are jobs
that can provide a family wage and there are some that cannot,
which force parents, like I said, to make a decision between
being there for your child or picking up a second job and
trying to work that.
As far as the administration in our school, we talk
frequently about the stigma that some of our parents and
students have about participating in the program. Before we
were able to offer this to everybody, our staff didn't feel it
was comfortable to bring breakfast in the classroom by having
some students watch another student eat. By doing this and
participating in the CEP program directly, which is the
result----
Mr. Khanna. CEP means community eligibility?
Mr. Pethan. Eligibility provision, yes. And what that means
is that now we can offer this breakfast in the classroom to all
of our students, and that is something that our teachers have
extreme buy-in in, and they see the value and they can see the
benefit. Our data proves that, and we're very happy with this
program. And to roll this back would force us again to make
tough choices where we are going to have to give some food to
some students and others would not, simply because their
parents missed a box on an eligibility form.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. That sounds crazy to me.
Congresswoman, can you please educate us with your
questions?
Ms. Pressley. First, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to enter into
the record, with unanimous consent, the long-form SNAP benefits
from the Maine Department of Health and Human Services that was
referenced by my colleague, Representative Porter.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Without objection, so ordered.
Ms. Pressley. Thank you again for holding this critically
important hearing. And thank you to our witnesses for sharing
your devastating, albeit compelling testimony.
I'm really just having a hard time here, because just the
stereotyping and the criminalizing and the vilifying of the
poor. Being poor is not a character flaw. There but for the
grace of God go all of us. Hardship does not discriminate. It
is transcendent. And I'm so tired of my colleagues on the other
side. We had a hearing in another committee about student debt
and the impact of this $1.6 trillion crisis on credit reports.
And in that hearing, they made assumptions about, well, if you
can't afford it, then just don't take out the loans, when we
have veterans who are defaulting on student loans because of
multiple deployments.
Stop stereotyping who is struggling, because under this
administration, more people are struggling than ever before,
because Donald J. Trump, if nothing else, is an equal
opportunity offender and abuser. This is child abuse. That's
it. The cruelty is the point. And so far as I'm concerned, this
administration has blood on their hands because of humanitarian
crisis at the border, because of money that has been allocated
but not released to Puerto Rico, because of the scourge of
public health--the public health crisis and violence--that is,
gun violence that they refuse to act on, and now starving
children. The cruelty is the point.
And then, the occupant of this White House in a so-called
State of the Union Address, when your stories tell the truth of
the state of our union, a so-called State of the Union Address
which turned into a divisive campaign rally speech, and there
are so many outright lies and baseless claims, I can barely
keep up. But he has the nerve to then evoke God and faith and
to express a newfound interest in ensuring, quote, that every
baby has the best chance to thrive and grow, unquote. And to
remind us, quote, that every human life is a sacred gift from
God, unquote.
Well, the autoimmune disease alopecia universalis has
robbed me of my hair, but it has not robbed me of my memory.
And I spent plenty of time in Sunday school. In Matthew 25:35,
this administration has forgotten about the least of these. So
this is an ironic assertion to come from this administration,
putting more than 3 million individuals--pushing them off of
SNAP, including more than 1 million children.
In Massachusetts, more than 100,000 people stand to lose
access to benefits, including 72,000 children. It's very
apropos during this time of year to quote Dr. King, but who
doesn't get quoted enough is Coretta. She said starving a child
is violence. Punishing a mother and her family is violence. And
consent for poverty is violence.
Let me be clear. This administration's attack on SNAP is
nothing more than violence waged on the most vulnerable among
us, our children, the elderly, individuals with disabilities,
the poor, and the sick.
So, by a show of hands, how many of our panelists believe
that the Trump administration's eligibility changes to the SNAP
program will ensure that our children have the resources they
need to thrive and to grow? By a show of hands, who believes
these changes will ensure that?
So, it appears that most of us are not fooled. And once
again, as is always the case with this administration, the
cruelty is the point.
So, let's unpack the real impact the Trump administration's
proposed changes will have on children. And I know I'm running
out of time here. So, we've spoken already about the
destabilizing effects of this on learning and on health
holistically. But, Ms. Sullivan and Ms. Davis, if you would
speak to the long-term effects, not just the short-term, what
immediately shows up, but the long-term effects of food
insecurity or starving a child.
Ms. Sullivan. Yes. And I have, again, lived the experience.
I've been homeless with my children, experienced hunger during
those times, and I've had children who have been held back in
school. Again, I can speak to the personal trauma, but there
are public costs that are associated with this, children
repeating grades. The cost to the medical--you know, for
medical expenses to respond to the physical fallout. And again,
I talked about what that does to a parent mentally. It's very
traumatizing, and our children feel that, and they live that,
even though we try our best to protect them from that.
Ms. Pressley. Thank you.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Thank you, Congresswoman Pressley.
Congressman Sarbanes, you're now recognized for five
minutes.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. And thank you all for
your testimony. Very, very much appreciate it.
You know, when I'm thinking about these new rules that the
Trump administration has rolled out, I was reminded--I went
back to try to find this--of Ed Meese who was our Attorney
General at one point under President Reagan. He made a comment
where he said that--that people go to soup kitchens because the
food is free and that's easier than paying for it. He just
thought it was a convenience thing.
And I remember the outcry at that time, the callousness of
that comment and perspective on things. People don't reach for
these benefits or take advantage of the opportunity to access
SNAP benefits because it's just more convenient than going to a
restaurant or paying for it at a supermarket. They go because
they have a desperate need for it. And it's offensive to
suggest, either explicitly as Ed Meese did 30 years ago, or to
suggest implicitly by rolling out this kind of a new policy,
that that's the case.
I bring to this discussion a conviction that our schools
are a tremendous opportunity to respond to the needs of
children across the country, both in terms of nutrition, which
is what we are speaking to today, and health. I'm a very strong
proponent, as I know many of my colleagues are here, for
bolstering school-based health centers. But, obviously, that
works in concert with making sure that nutrition is available
to young people for all the reasons that you've discussed and
discussed very powerfully, and I thank you for that testimony.
So, I wanted to ask kind of a more open-ended question, and
whoever wants to answer is invited to do so. And that is, does
America know that we are hungry? It's incredible to me that so
many millions of Americans, including millions of children, are
going to bed hungry every night in this country of tremendous
wealth. Now, I know that people are charitable and they're
generous. You look at food drives. You look at the food banks
across the country.
So, do we not know that we're going hungry in this country?
Are we--are we hiding it away? I mean, hearings like this one
bring momentary focus to the question, but the more you pull
back the curtain on this data, the more unbelievable it is.
So just speak to that, because you--you all are testifying
and operating in a place where there's that heightened
awareness and sensitivity to this issue, but you must scratch
your head from time to time and just wonder, how is it that we
don't bring this more into the open and address it in a more
direct fashion? So, I invite anybody to respond to that.
Ms. Toney. Congressman, thank you. That's a fascinating
question. And I think those of us on the front lines are aware.
Unfortunately, if you have never experienced food insecurity or
been around someone who is experiencing food insecurity, you
sit from a point of privilege, and it's hard to look past that
for some of America. I'm afraid so.
But, also, there's another piece to this, Congressman, and
it's when we are constantly being bombarded with this
administration's talking points of stereotypes and people are
poor, people are lazy. We are attacking them as a person. We
are attacking their dignity. And when we are constantly--when
America is constantly bombarded by those talking points, it
permeates our culture.
We know better. The panelists on this--at this table know
better. We work on the front lines, in the trenches with this
issue every day or we have experienced it firsthand.
Unfortunately, we have a hill to climb or a mountain to
overcome with some of the other issues that bombard the
American people and the points--or the places of privilege that
some people may come from.
Mr. Pethan. I think it's downright shameful that we ignore
this fact that's going on, and I think if you're not seeing it
every single day and you understand the effects that it has on
our future, it's scary. It's scary. And I think the problem is
big and I feel like it's kind of the overwhelming sense, so we
try to bury it away and try to not pretend that we see it.
I would agree, I think that if you're seeing parents--and I
work with a lot of parents who are in this situation--they all
want what's best for their kids. I have never met a parent in
my years of education that I have ever seen where they want
their kid to do poor or they don't want them to be successful
in the future. All of the parents that I have ever met or my
experience have been wanting their kids to be better. And they
look for opportunities, not because it's convenient for them,
but because they need help, and I feel like that's my
responsibility as a leader of a school. And if that's the
opportunity that I have to help, that's what I'm going to do.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thanks for your testimony.
And just in yielding back, Mr. Chairman, I'd say that I see
in Baltimore every day there's a hidden America. It's
completely hidden away, and it's cloaked in poverty and hunger
and despair and frustration, that then leads to violence. And
somehow, we have found a way collectively in this country to
close that door and turn our eyes away from it. And it's to
the--it will haunt us as a Nation.
And I want to thank you for your--for convening the hearing
to bring some light to this issue. I hope we can continue the
focus.
And, again, I want to thank the panelists for your
testimony.
I yield back.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Thank you, everybody.
I think that what we've seen today is that SNAP works. SNAP
helps people. It helps adults. It helps children. It helps
educators. It helps the economy. It has the lowest fraud rate
of practically any government program.
So, what's the point? What's the real point going on here
behind trying to cut back the eligibility requirements? I think
it's politics. I think it's politics. It's an effort to show
that we are being tough on poor people, and in doing so, hoping
that they correct their ways, that they work harder, that
they--that they freeload less, and that they be better people.
But, actually, the people who utilize these benefits are just
like you and me. In fact, I was one of those people. At the end
of the day, what we do with SNAP defines who we are as a
country.
And to Donald Trump, I would just say, do not go forward
with this rule. Do not attack our children. As the late, great
Chairman Cummings said, we are better than this.
I'd like to now finally recognize Congressman Connolly for
five minutes of questioning.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Forgive me for being in and out of this hearing, but I've
had other commitments this morning but followed the hearing.
And had one of our own yesterday in my subcommittee on the
impact of moving to a chained CPI on poverty programs,
antipoverty programs across the board.
Ms. Davis, one of the characteristics, as I understand it,
of SNAP is it gives some flexibility at the statewide level.
Can you explain that?
Ms. Davis. Absolutely. One of the reasons why Congress has
reaffirmed broad-based categorical eligibility several times
over the past 20 years is recognizing that states have
different circumstances. The cost of housing is different in
L.A. than it is in southwest Virginia. Childcare costs may
differ.
But I think one thing that all states value and that
Congress has reinforced is the need to help support families as
they work their way out of poverty, by being able to increase
their earnings and to accumulate modest assets. Research shows
that if families are able to build assets, they're less likely
to be plunged deeper into poverty and deeper into the safety
net by one misstep.
Mr. Connolly. So, the point is the states are given the
flexibility to take cognizance of cost of living differences.
Big difference between living in Birmingham, Alabama, and
living in Fairfax, Virginia.
Ms. Davis. Absolutely.
Mr. Connolly. Or New York City. And the current program
gives them that flexibility.
What would happen if the new--the Trump administration
policy, as proposed, were to go into effect with respect to
that flexibility?
Ms. Davis. I think that it would be very burdensome on
states. That is why if you look at----
Mr. Connolly. If the flexibility changed.
Ms. Davis. If the flexibility were taken away, states would
face a great burden. If you look at the 183,000 comments
submitted on this rule, you will see hundreds from different
state agencies, local organizations and the like, talking about
how devastating it will be for communities, for families, for
schools, and for others in the state. And states will incur
millions of dollars in costs having to retrofit their
determinations systems, to train employees, and all of the
other pieces that come with implementing a change of this
magnitude.
Mr. Connolly. So just looking at who could be affected by
this, as I understand it, 3.1 million families with kids could
be affected, could actually have the eligibility for SNAP
affected, if this regulation were changed and regulations were
to go into effect. That's a pretty large number.
Ms. Davis. It is very significant. Three million people
who, you know, more than 2 million of whom are families with
children, the rest seniors and individuals with disabilities,
losing SNAP would obviously impact those families
significantly, leading to higher healthcare costs, poor health.
But communities would also lose out, because as the chairman
talked about earlier, SNAP has a multiplier effect. Those
dollars get spent immediately. 80 percent of SNAP is spent in
the first two weeks, 97 percent by the end of the month, and
they support farmers, truckers, grocery stores, jobs, and
dollars in the community. So, there is this ripple effect.
Mr. Connolly. It's a really good point you make, because I
remember meeting with some folks in rural Virginia, talking
about the subject several years ago. And I was shocked when
they told me that the grocery store in their community, the
only one they got, 60 percent of their business is SNAP.
So if you make fewer people eligible, it's not only a bad
thing for people in terms of the nutrition and the health of
their kids, but in terms of local economy, you could drive, you
know, grocery stores or food chains out of business, frankly,
if you really materially affect SNAP eligibility. Is that not
correct?
Ms. Davis. Yes. That impact would be widespread and felt
throughout the community. And we hear time and again that in
areas that haven't seen a robust recovery where resources are
limited, that grocery stores stagger staffing to account for
when benefits are being loaded up onto cards because that is
when the shopping occurs.
And, again, CBO reaffirmed recently that as far as stimulus
is concerned, SNAP has one of the biggest bangs for the buck.
Because those funds are spent immediately, they go into the
economy and help create and maintain jobs, economic activity,
and support industries from manufacturing, to trucking, to
growing.
Mr. Connolly. Well, I want to thank the chairman for
holding this hearing. It's the second in our series in terms of
real impacts on real people, fellow Americans and their kids.
And so, I think, you know, there's real value in trying to
highlight this issue.
And I want to thank all of you for joining us today.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having this hearing.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Thank you, Congressman.
I'd like to thank our witnesses for their testimony today.
Without objection, all members will have five legislative
days within which to submit additional written questions for
the witnesses to the chair. Those will be forwarded to the
witnesses for responses. I ask our witnesses to please respond
as promptly as you are able.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:09 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[all]