[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]