[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 154 (Tuesday, September 24, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H7892-H7898]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONGRESSIONAL BLACK CAUCUS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 3, 2019, the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Ms. Plaskett)
is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
General Leave
Ms. PLASKETT. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include
any extraneous material on the subject of this Special Order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands?
There was no objection.
Ms. PLASKETT. Madam Speaker, I rise as a member of the Congressional
Black Caucus to speak to this body about the issues that are important
to Americans, everyday Americans.
The Congressional Black Caucus is the conscience of the Congress, and
we feel that it is our responsibility in our Special Order Hours to
address those issues and concerns that are of most importance to the
people of America. We represent 70 million Americans in our caucus, 55
Members strong, and we are using this time to address this Congress on
the issues of agriculture and the Black community.
Agriculture and the Black community, it is more than just SNAP for
us.
Madam Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. David Scott).
Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I come before you as the
chairman of the Agriculture Subcommittee on Commodity Exchanges,
Energy, and Credit.
Madam Speaker, I rise at this moment to speak out against the United
States Department of Agriculture's food and nutrition service proposed
rule to change the eligibility requirements for SNAP; and let me tell
you why, Madam Speaker.
It is because this proposed rule, number one, it would eliminate
broad-based categorical eligibility for SNAP, and effectively end all
SNAP benefits for more than 3 million seniors, veterans, working
families with children, and individuals with disabilities.
Current eligibility simply allows low-income families and children to
receive SNAP benefits if they have already qualified for other anti-
poverty programs. That's it.
But, Madam Speaker, in fiscal year 2016 alone, over 10,000 Georgia
households were helped to meet their basic needs as a direct result of
current eligibility.
This proposed change is founded upon an unfortunately common, but
incorrect assumption of ``bad actors'' wasting government funds.
Nothing could be further from the truth. It is not about that.
In reality, these programs have proven to both encourage work and
increase savings in order to transition out of the program.
[[Page H7893]]
Madam Speaker, millions of Americans are just one lost job, just one
health crisis, or another emergency, maybe the bread winner passed on.
These things happen unexpectedly and any other emergency issues that
may arise, it keeps them from becoming food insecure.
Madam Speaker, there are a lot of things that we can do without, but
food we cannot ever do without. So it is up to us Members of Congress
to look out for the most vulnerable among us.
If implemented, this rule would not only remove food from the tables
of Americans, but also reduce their potential for economic success and
financial security.
Ultimately, eliminating the ability of States to use categorical
eligibility would mean jeopardizing the very futures of many
hardworking Americans. So I urge my colleagues to join us within the
Black Caucus--it is about all of us--and speak out against this
proposed change in order to protect the health and well-being of all of
our American people.
Ms. PLASKETT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that
enlightening information that he has shared with us. We know that the
years of experience and seniority that the gentleman has gained on the
Agriculture Committee have given him not only a passion, but a real
understanding of the issues that are important, not only to Americans
who utilize SNAP, but to those farmers and those in our agricultural
community who are supportive of the things that we are trying to push
forward and that this administration is, in fact, trying to impede.
Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Madam Speaker, that is correct. And that
is why we are here tonight, with great compassion, with great fairness,
asking our Members of Congress, on a unanimous basis, to join in this
fight.
It is not just our fight. This is a fight that appeals to the basic
nature and purpose of the American people. That is us. And I appreciate
the gentlewoman inviting me to share in making this appeal.
Ms. PLASKETT. Madam Speaker, I think of all the money that America
spends on foreign aid, foreign food programs; and the fact that we, as
Americans, are squabbling over feeding our own, of providing nutrition
and assistance to those families, to veterans, to our elders, to our
children who need these programs, it is astounding that we even have to
have this conversation.
Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Madam Speaker, the gentlewoman is right.
And I leave you with the words, the eloquent words, of Thomas Jefferson
when he gave us the meaning of our great Nation: ``Life, liberty, and
the pursuit of happiness.''
One thing is for certain, we can't be happy without food because we
can't live without food. There is no greater meaning for the
implementation of Thomas Jefferson's words: ``Life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness.'' That means food.
Ms. PLASKETT. Madam Speaker, as you can see, I am here alongside my
colleagues of the Congressional Black Caucus in strong opposition to
the administration's proposal to severely restrict broad-based
categorical eligibility, or cat-el.
This rule would kick millions of people struggling with hunger from
the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, most commonly known as
SNAP, as well as approximately 250,000 children from preschool meals;
250,000 children who rely on this program to provide them with lunch,
with breakfast, allowing them to be able to utilize their skills in
school, allowing them to be able to learn on a daily basis.
Many of these children, we know, without this program are unable to
eat, are unable to be able to stay awake in school because of the
hunger that is within them, right here in this country. And so we are
fighting to make sure that those children are not removed; that those
millions of Americans are not removed from this program.
SNAP provides nutrition benefits to supplement the food budget of
needy families so they can purchase healthy food and move toward self-
sufficiency; providing food assistance that averages just $1.40 per
person per meal, $1.40 per meal.
SNAP is a modest benefit, with nearly half of the participants
running out of benefits before the end of the month. If anything,
policymakers should be debating how much to increase this supplemental
benefit, given that there is no room for cuts.
What's more, Trump's tax law gave more in tax breaks to the top 1
percent than SNAP costs in its entirety. And if the Trump
administration is looking for strategies to achieve savings in SNAP,
while actually helping workers, it need look no further than raising
the Federal minimum wage. Raising the Federal minimum wage to $12, not
even the $15 proposed in the Raise the Wage Act, would save $53 billion
over the next 10 years, nearly four times as much as the proposed rule,
by ensuring that workers earn more so that they are better able to
afford food, instead of punishing labor market struggles with hunger.
The Trump administration's proposed rule would recalculate how we
measure poverty, a move that would more than likely result in reducing
the eligibility criteria for individuals and removing people off
certain Federal programs that are meant to assist poor and low-income
families.
Recently, the Trump administration proposed a rule that would
recalculate how we measure poverty, a move that would more than likely
result in reducing the eligibility criteria for individuals and
removing people off certain Federal programs that are meant to assist
poor and low-income families.
The proposed rule would change how the Census measures poverty in a
manner that will artificially drive down the number of people counted
as officially poor. Because eligibility for a range of basic supports
is calculated based on the poverty threshold, each year, as costs go
up, many working people with low pay would gradually be stripped of
SNAP, WIC, Medicaid, parts of Medicare, Head Start, school lunch, legal
services, even tax credits under the Affordable Care Act.
In my own district, due to Hurricanes Irma and Maria, the Virgin
Islands Department of Human Services Division of Family Assistance
executed Disaster SNAP, D-SNAP, and regular SNAP simultaneously. The
Virgin Islands provided this Disaster SNAP to approximately 30,000
households, and SNAP to approximately 29,000 households.
There are approximately now 22,000 people on SNAP in the Virgin
Islands, where we have a 33 percent child poverty rate.
As a member of the House Agriculture Committee, and a conferee on the
2018 farm bill, I am proud of the work we did on that bill. This
proposal flies in the face of everything we worked on to build a
bipartisan bill, a bipartisan consensus around the process of SNAP, and
the funding, and the support we recognize that American families need.
House Democrats and our colleagues in the Senate expressly rejected
changes to cat-el; the end result was the most overwhelmingly
bipartisan farm bill in history. This is only an attempt by an
ideological White House at an end-run around congressional intent. The
White House is trying to take away the authority of this body, and we
will not stand by and allow that to happen.
Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne),
who has worked extensively on this issue, as well as poverty issues and
issues on how to increase healthcare benefits to American families. I
yield to the gentleman to speak about those issues.
{time} 1945
Mr. PAYNE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from the U.S.
Virgin Islands for yielding and for her continued leadership on issues
that impact Americans throughout the diaspora and also issues that the
CBC finds necessary to continue to raise. We are known as the
conscience of the Congress, and although we are the Congressional Black
Caucus, we represent 78 million Americans of all stripes. That is
something that I think is very important for people to understand.
I am not surprised that the gentlewoman once again has raised an
issue for the caucus that impacts so many people in this Nation and, if
President Trump has his way, negatively impacts so many people in this
Nation.
I am very concerned about Trump's latest attack on low-income
Americans. His administration would like to make drastic changes to the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program,
[[Page H7894]]
or SNAP. The program, which used to be called food stamps, has helped
millions of working parents, disabled Americans, and seniors afford a
more nutritional diet.
Traditionally, SNAP benefits were assigned based on a standard income
level. If you made less than 130 percent of the Federal poverty level,
roughly $2,300 per month, you were eligible. If you made more than
that, you were not. However, there was an important clause in how the
State governments assessed that income.
If you had a more prosperous year, say you made an extra $100 or $200
per month thanks to a side job, you could still be eligible for the
benefits. States knew that such income might be temporary, and they did
not want to punish hardworking Americans for seeking a better life.
The system worked because it encouraged nutritious eating for lower
income citizens, a group that studies show have less nutritious diets
across the board. And it allowed them to save a little money for the
future.
In addition, it saved time because it allowed recipients to enroll
automatically and provided a new market for American farm products. It
was a win-win for everyone involved.
So, naturally, Trump wants to change that. He wants to impose a hard
cap on the income levels for recipients, and he wants to eliminate
eligibility for people with more than $2,300 in a bank account.
If the rule is enacted, it could be disastrous for our country's
lower income workers, disabled citizens, and the elderly. Millions of
them could lose their benefits and return to unhealthy eating, because
that is all they would be able to afford.
Study after study shows the costs to our Nation's healthcare from
patients with poor diets. The Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention estimates that unhealthy eating costs about $1 trillion,
with a T, per year in extra healthcare and contributes to the death of
almost 700,000 citizens annually, the size of a congressional district.
These are costs we do not need, especially at a time when many
economists say a recession is looming.
There are several other problems with this proposed rule. It promotes
the belief that lower income Americans should stay lower income because
it punishes people who want to save a little money. If you save too
much, you could lose your benefits.
The greatest harm would be done to innocent schoolchildren. The free
school meal programs across the country use SNAP eligibility to
determine whether children can qualify for the meals. If their parents
get eliminated from the system, at least 265,000 students could go
hungry during the school day. If they lose those meals, academic
studies show that their performance in school will drop significantly.
You cannot think about math when you are thinking about an empty
stomach. They will have lower standardized test scores, and they are
more likely to come to school late, if they come at all.
These children feel the shame of being in the Free and Reduced Meal
Program already. This rule would reduce that shame by making sure they
do not have any meals at all.
These are students who need support the most, so we need to support
them the most. What we do not need are rules designed to keep them in
poverty from an administration dedicated to enriching the wealthy and
themselves.
We need to give States the freedom to assess their SNAP eligibility
in a way that empowers them to empower their citizens. We need to
promote healthy living with proper diet and nutrition choices. We need
to protect our schoolchildren and do everything possible to make sure
that they get every educational benefit possible.
That is why we need to fight this proposed rule change to the SNAP
program.
Our farmers are struggling, thanks to Trump's trade wars, and our
students are struggling from inequality already. We do not need to make
both of those problems worse.
We are mortified but not surprised by the actions of a callous
administration toward people of need. It is not surprising that the
administration has looked into how it could once again penalize poor
people, struggling children, and the elderly, who have paid their dues,
played by the rules, and now need a little assistance, but they just
don't matter.
This is not the country I was led to believe that I was growing up
in. This is not what I learned in school. What we see here is a
disassembling of a nation. Everything that we have stood for is falling
apart around us because of this President and his administration.
We will continue to fight. I think our Nation is stronger than one
man. We will come together as a great Nation once again and take care
of the least of us. It is our obligation.
Ms. PLASKETT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the great
information, the statistics, the science that is there that explains to
us what happens when SNAP is denied to young people, as well as his
heartfelt words about where our Nation is going when we are unable to
feed our own.
I have some remarks from another Member of the Congressional Black
Caucus, Congresswoman Marcia Fudge, who is the chairperson of the
Subcommittee on Nutrition, Oversight, and Department Operations of the
Agriculture Committee.
Madam Speaker, over 40 States and territories use broad-based
categorical eligibility, or BBCE, to streamline the administration of
SNAP and provide critical assistance to households receiving benefits
and services through the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families block
grant.
BBCE is proven to help millions of working poor families move toward
financial security by easing the benefits cliff as their earnings
increase.
On July 24, 2019, USDA published a proposed rule to restrict the use
of BBCE and eliminate SNAP benefits for an estimated 3.1 million
Americans. This includes children, working families, military veterans,
disabled individuals, and our seniors.
Most shameful is the proposal's impact on hungry school-age children.
By USDA's own estimates, the new policy would take away direct access
to free school meals for at least 500,000 schoolchildren. Nearly half a
million children would be left to go hungry during the school day,
shifting the burden to strapped school districts.
In her State of Ohio, according to the Robert Wood Johnson
Foundation, over 61,000 SNAP households would lose their benefits. USDA
reports that, in 2017, the prevalence of food insecurity among those in
Ohio was higher than the national average. 13.7 percent of Ohioans were
food insecure in 2017 compared to 12.3 percent nationally.
Even USDA admits the proposed changes to SNAP would make food
insecurity worse and make it hard for millions of Americans to get by.
Most notably, it would remove the current flexibility for States and
territories to use BBCE to tailor SNAP to best meet the food needs of
their own populations.
Republicans love to talk about States' rights when it suits them, but
when it comes to the flexibility of States to meet the needs of food-
insecure populations, then they want something very different.
As the economy continues to leave working families and our most
vulnerable behind, programs like SNAP are needed more than ever.
Congress already debated these issues. We came together and rejected
this policy in both the 2014 and 2018 farm bills with a record
bipartisan vote.
This proposed rule is shameful, cruel, and contrary to the will of
Congress. This unilateral action by the administration only complicates
legitimate bipartisan efforts to make programs like SNAP more effective
and efficient for millions of people who rely on it to put food on the
table.
I thank Congresswoman Fudge for her remarks, and she will include the
remainder of her remarks in the Record.
I would note that on May 22, 2019, I sent my own Governor of the
Virgin Islands a letter reminding him of the need for us to speak out
on the proposed rule that would recalculate how we measure poverty, a
move that would make it more than likely to result in reducing the
eligibility criteria for individuals and removing people off certain
Federal programs that are meant to assist poor and low-income families.
I include that letter in the Record.
[[Page H7895]]
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, May 22, 2019.
Governor Albert Bryan Jr.,
Christiansted, VI.
Governor Bryan: Recently, the Trump Administration proposed
a rule that would recalculate how we measure poverty, a move
that would more than likely result in reducing the
eligibility criteria for individuals and removing people off
certain federal programs that are meant to assist poor and
low-income families.
The proposed rule would change how the Census measures
poverty in a manner that that will artificially drive down
the number of people counted as officially poor. Because
eligibility for a range of basic supports is calculated based
on the poverty threshold, each year as costs go up, many
working people with low pay would gradually be stripped of
SNAP (formerly food stamps), WIC, Medicaid, parts of
Medicare, Head Start, school lunch, legal services, and even
tax credits under the Affordable Care Act.
Due to Hurricanes Irma and Maria, the Virgin Islands
Department of Human Services Division of Family Assistance
executed both Disaster SNAP--D-SNAP--and regular SNAP
simultaneously. The Virgin Islands provided D-SNAP to
approximately 30,000 households and SNAP to approximately
29,000 households territory-wide. As a result, members of the
community were able to purchase desperately needed food.
There are now approximately 22,000 people on SNAP in the
Virgin Islands.
This is an important a vital program for Virgin Islanders.
There is a 45-day window to comment on the proposal and the
deadline is June 21, 2019. I am requesting that the
Government of the Virgin Islands submit its comment on the
effect this rule will have on the residents of the Territory.
Sincerely,
Stacey E. Plaskett,
Member of Congress.
Ms. PLASKETT. I include in the Record letters from AARP, as well as
the United States Conference of Mayors, that have written in during the
comment period to speak out against and in opposition to the proposed
rule changes by this administration.
AARP,
Washington, September 23, 2019.
Re FNS-2018-0037, Revision of Categorical Eligibility in the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
Program Design Branch,
Program Development Division, Food and Nutrition Service,
USDA, Alexandria, VA.
AARP, on behalf of its nearly 38 million members and all
older Americans nationwide, welcomes the opportunity to
submit comments on the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
(USDA) proposed rule to revise categorical eligibility in the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Ensuring
that older Americans experiencing food-related hardship have
access to nutrition assistance is a priority for AARP. SNAP
provides critical food assistance for millions of people,
including 8.7 million households with at least one adult age
50 or older.
AARP believes the proposed revision to categorical eligibility in SNAP
will harm low income seniors and recommends that the Administration
withdraw its proposal.
We are deeply concerned that the Administration's proposal
would harm older Americans' health and financial security.
The proposed rule undermines the intent of SNAP to alleviate
hunger and food insecurity among low-income households.
Additionally, in an attempt to restrict eligibility for SNAP,
the proposed changes would make low-income households more
financially vulnerable and more likely to rely on public
benefit programs. According to USDA's regulatory impact
analysis, the proposed rule may ``negatively impact food
security and reduce savings rates among those individuals who
do not meet the income and resource eligibility requirements
for SNAP or the substantial and ongoing requirements for
expanded categorical eligibility.'' Similar efforts to limit
broad-based categorical eligibility (BBCE) in the House-
passed version of the 2018 Farm Bill were ultimately rejected
on a bipartisan basis.
USDA estimates that the proposed regulation would eliminate
SNAP eligibility for 3.1 million people, disproportionately
impacting households with one or more elderly individual(s).
Households with elderly members represent more than one-third
of the 1.7 million households the Administration estimates
would lose SNAP eligibility; meanwhile, those households make
up only 24 percent of current program participants. The
eligibility cut would affect 13 percent of households with
seniors, 7 percent of households with children, and 9 percent
of households overall. Since the cuts would
disproportionately harm elderly individuals, USDA determined
that there is a potential for ``civil rights impacts,'' which
is alarming to AARP.
SNAP is critical to the food security and health of millions of older
Americans.
SNAP is the primary source of nutrition assistance for many
people who are struggling to put food on the table. While the
program provides a modest benefit ($125 a month on average
for households with members age 60 or older), it helps
recipients meet their basic food needs. SNAP is an especially
important program for older Americans because many face
challenges to employment, live on fixed incomes, live alone,
and have limited financial resources to spend on necessities
like food, housing, and essential medicine.
Unfortunately, food insecurity among older Americans is
already all too common. An estimated 5.5 million Americans
age 60 and older were food insecure in 2017. Households with
grandchildren are nearly three times as likely to be food
insecure. The proposed rule would lead to even greater food
insecurity among older Americans.
Older adults who are food insecure are at increased risk
for many negative health outcomes. They are over twice as
likely to report being in fair or poor health relative to
older adults who are food-secure. Compared to food-secure
older adults, they are also 53 percent more likely to report
a heart attack, 52 percent more likely to develop asthma, 40
percent more likely to have congestive heart failure, 22
percent more likely to face limitations of Activities of
Daily Living, and 60 percent more likely to experience
depression.
Food insecurity among older adults also results in
significant costs to the American public, particularly
through increased expenditures on health care. Experts widely
agree that nutrition is one of the most important factors
influencing our health. SNAP participation has been linked to
reduced hospital and nursing home admissions among older
adults. Research examining older adults who were dually
eligible for Medicare and Medicaid in Maryland found that
SNAP participants were 23 percent less likely to enter a
nursing home and those dually enrolled were 4 percent less
likely to be hospitalized in the year after receiving SNAP in
comparison to nonparticipants. Enrolling the millions of
seniors eligible but not enrolled in SNAP could result in
billions of dollars in health care savings.
BBCE allows low-income households to save for emergencies and become
self-sufficient.
The law governing SNAP, determined by Congress, sets the
income limit and asset limit for the program, and offers
important options provided to state administrators. For more
than 20 years, states have had the flexibility to lift the
asset tests under SNAP allowing families to purchase
groceries without having to spend down their limited savings.
This allows them to maintain a cushion that can help them
weather future financial emergencies caused by unexpected
health emergencies, natural disasters, or an unforeseen job
loss. A basic level of savings can prevent severe hardship as
a result of a financial shock and can ultimately reduce the
likelihood that a household will need public benefits like
SNAP.
Currently, 23 states and jurisdictions using BBCE have no
asset limit for SNAP. Under the proposed rule, states would
lose this flexibility, and SNAP applicants would be held to
the restrictive federal asset limits. Asset tests disqualify
families and individuals from food assistance if they have
managed to save as little as $2,250--or $3,500 for households
with elderly or disabled members--who may struggle with
replenishing any assets they spend down. This would
discourage low-income households from accumulating small but
meaningful assets, jeopardizing their financial security and
making it more likely that they will need to turn to SNAP or
other public assistance programs for support. A recent study
found that BBCE increases the likelihood that a SNAP
recipient has at least $500 in a bank account by 8 percent.
By allowing SNAP recipients to build a reasonable level of
preventive savings under BBCE, households are more likely to
set aside some money and become more self-sufficient.
The proposed rule would increase administrative burden for states and
households.
The rule would significantly limit states' flexibility and
make eligibility for SNAP benefits more restrictive for
people in 39 states, Washington D.C., Guam and the Virgin
Islands. According to USDA, BBCE reduces administrative
burdens for State agencies and households and particularly
benefits working households. Under the proposed rule, 17.2
million households that remain eligible for SNAP, as well as
new SNAP applicants, would face additional burdens associated
with the application process. Research has demonstrated that
policies that add burdens to SNAP participation contribute to
a decline in program participation. Instead of increasing
burdens on SNAP applicants, we call for changes that would
make enrollment in SNAP easier and as seamless as possible.
Application forms, procedures, and program notices should be
shortened, simplified, and integrated with other government
benefit programs. BBCE currently helps reduce the complexity
of the SNAP application process and helps to improve state
administration while lowering administrative costs.
Despite the benefits of SNAP, older adult participation
rates in SNAP are the lowest of any age group. In FY 2017, 84
percent of all eligible individuals were enrolled in SNAP.
However, only 48 percent of eligible elderly individuals were
enrolled in the program, including just 29 percent of elderly
individuals living with other people. A number of factors
already keep eligible older Americans from receiving
benefits, including the complicated and time-consuming
application and enrollment processes. Processes that make
enrollment and reporting easier and help overcome
[[Page H7896]]
the barriers that keep older Americans from accessing the
food assistance they need are important for reducing food
insecurity among older adults.
Conclusion
We are committed to reducing hunger and food insecurity
among older Americans and therefore urge the Administration
to withdraw its proposal. SNAP provides important nutritional
support, promotes healthy aging, and is associated with
reduced health care costs. The BBCE policy in particular also
helps people save and improve their financial wellbeing.
Instead of reducing eligibility for the program while
increasing administrative burdens, we should be working to
further strengthen SNAP and improve participation in the
program, particularly among eligible older adults who
underutilize the program more than any other age group. If
you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Thank you for your consideration of our comments.
Sincerely,
David Certner,
Legislative Counsel and Legislative Policy Director,
Government Affairs.
____
The United States Conference
of Mayors,
Washington, DC, September 23, 2019.
Ms. Jessica Shahin,
Associate Administrator, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program, Program Design Branch, Program Development
Division, Food and Nutrition Service, USDA, Alexandria,
VA.
Dear Associate Administrator Shahin: On behalf of the US
Conference of Mayors (USCM), we are writing to express our
strong opposition to the proposed revision of ``broad based
categorical eligibility'' in USDA's Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP) published in the Federal Register
on July 23, 2019. As noted in the proposal's regulatory
analysis, this far reaching executive action will escalate
food insecurity and hunger for an estimated 3.1 million
individuals--including children, seniors, and people with
disabilities in our states, regions and cities nationwide.
Furthermore, this proposal will put children's health and
development at risk by removing their access to healthy
school meals; and harm our economy by reducing the amount of
SNAP dollars available to spur regional and local economic
activity.
As Mayors, we serve as the CEOs of the nation's cities; and
remain most concerned about any proposal that will reduce
improvements to the health of our residents, weaken nutrition
programs, deteriorate advances to healthy food access, and
spur declines in local and regional economies. USCM has
supported and adopted policies over many years to eliminate
hunger, combat food insecurity and improve health disparities
to build a stronger society for all residents in our
communities. Equally, we have vigorously opposed the proposed
revision of broad based categorical eligibility of USDA's
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and rejected this
proposal most recently throughout deliberation of the Farm
Bill in 2018.
SNAP remains one of our nations' key resources in the fight
against hunger and is particularly important to vulnerable
populations in our cities. For instance, 80 percent of SNAP
households include a child, an elderly person, or a person
with disabilities; and 85 percent of all SNAP benefits go to
such households. Furthermore, SNAP is not only a critical
resource in the fight against hunger and food insecurity, but
also lifts people out of poverty. Per the 2017 Supplemental
Poverty Measure Report, SNAP lifted 3.4 million people--
including 1.5 million children out of poverty in 2017. So, we
stand united and reject any proposal to restrict eligibility
to vulnerable adults, children, seniors, and people with
disabilities in our cities.
Research has found that receipt of SNAP in early childhood
improved high school graduation rates, adult earnings, and
adult health. Mayors recognize that solving child hunger and
poverty is critically important to also creating a future
where all children thrive. Regular access to healthy and
affordable meals is one of the strongest predictors of
improved school performance, better health, and sound
childhood development.
Lastly, the proposed rule will harm local and regional
economies, as it is well documented that the economic gains
from public benefits are even greater than the volume of
direct assistance due to a ``multiplier'' effect. USDA has
estimated that during times of economic downturn, every
additional $5 dollars in SNAP benefits generates up to $9
dollars of economic activity, and every $1 billion increase
in SNAP benefits results in 8,900 full-time equivalent jobs.
Executive action should not be used to hurt individuals,
families and communities; and we urge you to abandon this
proposal. Our nation cannot remain globally competitive if
our children do not have enough to eat; if our citizens do
not have access to affordable health care; if housing and
other basic needs are priced out of reach; and if adults who
are willing and able to work cannot find jobs that will help
them support their families.
Sincerely,
Levar Stoney, Mayor of Richmond, VA, Chair, Children,
Health, and Human Services Standing Committee; Greg Fischer,
Mayor of Louisville, KY, Vice President; Hardie Davis Jr.,
Mayor of Augusta, GA; Jesse Arreguin, Mayor of Berkeley, CA;
Martin J. Walsh, Mayor of Boston, MA; Muriel Bowser, Mayor of
Washington, DC, Co-Chair, Food Policy Task Force; Nan Whaley,
Mayor of Dayton, OH, Second Vice President; Steve Adler,
Mayor of Austin, TX; John A. Mirisch, Mayor of Beverly Hills,
CA; Byron W. Brown, Mayor of Buffalo, NY.
Bernard ``Jack'' Young, Mayor of Baltimore, MD, Co-Chair,
Food Policy Task Force; Steve Benjamin, Mayor of Columbia,
SC, Past President; Denny Doyle, Mayor of Beaverton, OR;
Michael J. Venezia, Mayor of Bloomfield, NJ; Dave Palmer,
Mayor of Butte, MT; Pam Hemminger, Mayor of Chapel Hill, NC;
Patrick L. Wojahn, Mayor of College Park, MD; Steve Schewel,
Mayor of Durham, NC; Lily Mei, Mayor of Fremont, CA; Bobby J.
Hopewell, Mayor of Kalamazoo, MI.
David J. Berger, Mayor of Lima, OH; Robert A.B. Reichert,
Mayor of Macon, GA; Steve Gawron, Mayor of Muskegon, MI; Bill
de Blasio, Mayor of New York, NY; Francis `Mac' Womack III,
Mayor of North Brunswick NJ; Adrian O. Mapp, Mayor of
Plainfield, NJ; Jorge O. Elorza, Mayor of Providence, RI;
Lovely A. Warren, Mayor of Rochester, NY; Pauline Russo
Cutter, Mayor of San Leandro, CA; John J. Tecklenburg, Mayor
of Charleston, SC.
Eric Johnson, Mayor of Dallas, TX; James B. Hovland, Mayor
of Edina, MN; Sylvester Turner, Mayor of Houston, TX;
Dontario `Don' Hardy, Mayor of Kinston, NC; John P. Marchand,
Mayor of Livermore, CA; Satya Rhodes-Conway, Mayor of
Madison, WI; Jill Techel, Mayor of Napa, CA; McKinley L.
Price DDS, Mayor of Newport News, VA; Jim Kenney, Mayor of
Philadelphia, PA; Rex Hardin, Mayor of Pompano Beach, FL.
Hillary Shieve, Mayor of Reno, NV; Jackie Biskupski, Mayor
of Salt Lake City, UT; Alan Webber, Mayor of Santa Fe, NM;
Mary Casillas Salas, Mayor of Chula Vista, CA; Michael B.
Hancock, Mayor of Denver, CO; Lioneld Jordan, Mayor of
Fayetteville, AK; Steve Williams, Mayor of Huntington, WV;
Kenneth D. Miyagishima, Mayor of Las Cruces, NM; Eric
Garcetti, Mayor of Los Angeles, CA; Jacob Frey, Mayor of
Minneapolis, MN.
David Briley, Mayor of Nashville, TN; Chris Koos, Mayor of
Normal, IL; Brian C. Wahler, Mayor of Piscataway, NJ; Ted
Wheeler, Mayor of Portland, OR; Thomas K. Butt, Mayor of
Richmond, CA; Ron Nirenberg, Mayor of San Antonio; Gleam
Davis, Mayor of Santa Monica, CA; Gary R. McCarthy, Mayor of
Schenectady, NY; Pete Buttigieg, Mayor of South Bend, IN;
Michael D. Tubbs, Mayor of Stockton, CA.
Michelle De La Isla, Mayor of Topeka, KS; Thomas M. Roach,
Mayor of White Plains, NY; David J. Narkewicz, Mayor of
Northampton, MA; Alex B. Morse III, Mayor of Holyoke, MA;
William C. Reichert, Mayor of West Springfield, MA; Michael
M. Vargas, Mayor of Perris, CA; Nicole LaChapelle, Mayor of
Easthampton, MA; Margarita L. Rios, Mayor of Norwalk, CA; Tim
Sandoval, Mayor of Pomona, CA; Jenny A. Durkan, Mayor of
Seattle, WA.
William `Bill' Edwards, Mayor of South Fulton, GA; Victoria
Woodards, Mayor of Tacoma, WA; Jonathan Rothschild, Mayor of
Tucson, AZ; Cassie Franklin, Mayor of Everett, WA; William
Peduto, Mayor of Pittsburgh, PA; Emmett V. Jordan, Mayor of
Greenbelt, MD; Andy Schor, Mayor of Lansing, MI; Ian Bain,
Mayor of Redwood City, CA, Mayor of Alejandra Sotelo-Solis,
Mayor of National City, CA; Teresa Barrett, Mayor of
Petaluma, CA.
Peter Weiss, Mayor of Oceanside, CA; Jeffrey Z. Slavin,
Mayor of Somerset, MD; Lyda Krewson, Mayor of St. Louis, MO;
Mark W. Mitchell, Mayor of Tempe, AZ; Carol Dutra-Vernaci,
Mayor of Union City, CA; Hazelle Rogers, Mayor of Lauderdale
Lakes, FL; Kate Gallego, Mayor of Phoenix, AZ; Thomas W.
Bernard, Mayor of North Adams, MA; Adele Andrade-Stadler,
Mayor of Alhambra, CA; Ruthanne Fuller, Mayor of Newton, MA.
Martine Watkins, Mayor of Santa Cruz, CA; Petrella
Robinson, Mayor of North Brentwood, MD; Robert Garcia, Mayor
of Long Beach, CA.
Ms. PLASKETT. Madam Speaker, may I ask how much time I have
remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands has
32 minutes remaining.
Ms. PLASKETT. Madam Speaker, President Trump's latest attempt to
slash SNAP would be harmful to Americans across the country, but
certain communities face particular risks. Six of the groups that
Trump's proposed rules would hit hardest include rural communities,
Black and Latinx America, people with disabilities, people with
criminal records who are trying to move on, those in the LGBTQ
community, and women.
Given that 76 percent of rural adults report that good jobs are
scarce in their areas, rural communities will be among the hardest hit
by Trump's proposed rule, as it would tie States' hands and remove the
flexibility they need to help residents of high-unemployment areas put
food on the table.
Indeed, while urban areas experienced a net gain of 3.6 million jobs
from 2007 to 2015, rural areas lost 400,000 jobs during that time,
meaning
[[Page H7897]]
that many rural areas have struggled to recover from the Great
Recession.
{time} 2000
Additionally, Black and Hispanic households are especially likely to
be food insecure and thus disproportionately rely on SNAP to help them
meet basic needs, accounting for about 30 percent, and nearly 20
percent of SNAP benefits in 2016, respectively.
This is due in large part to the systematic barriers that African
Americans and Latinx Americans face to building wealth, purchasing
homes, accessing education, and escaping poverty.
Poverty rates in these communities are more than double those of
White Americans, and the Black unemployment rate is still more than
twice that of White workers, despite what is spoken of in the White
House. In 2016, Black Americans' median wealth was only $13,460,
compared with $142,000 for White Americans.
People with disabilities:
The proposed rule purports to apply only to ``able-bodied adults
without dependents.'' What does that mean? Many of the more than 11
million people with disabilities who receive SNAP assistance could lose
that assistance under the rule, as people who face limited work
capacity due to disability or poor health are regularly misclassified
as able-bodied for the purposes of SNAP.
In fact, based on analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy
Priorities, the author estimates that 12 percent of SNAP recipients
ages 18 to 59 have at least one physical, functional, or work
limitation but are not counted as disabled under SNAP.
People with criminal records:
The proposed rule particularly harms people who come into contact
with the criminal justice system. Nearly nine in ten employers use
criminal background checks in hiring. This means that even an old,
minor criminal record can serve as a life sentence to poverty and
joblessness. As a result, the unemployment rate among formerly
incarcerated individuals is approximately 27 percent. What is more, one
study shows that 60 percent of formerly incarcerated individuals remain
unemployed 1 year following their release.
By helping people put food on the table while they get back on their
feet, SNAP is a powerful tool for supporting reentry and preventing
recidivism. In fact, one study shows that when formerly incarcerated
people are subjected to harsher SNAP requirements, compounded by the
substantial barriers they already face, recidivism rates increase.
Taking SNAP away from workers as they struggle to rebuild their lives
and reenter the labor market would thus directly undercut the
bipartisan gains that the President and Congress say they support in
the FIRST STEP Act.
The LGBTQ people:
Trump's proposed rule would also be particularly burdensome for the
LGBTQ community. According to a 2017 nationally representative CAP
survey, LGBTQ people are more than twice as likely as non-LGBTQ people
to receive SNAP benefits, with 26 percent of LGBTQ women and 18 percent
of men reporting that they or their families received SNAP.
The disproportionate receipt of benefits is just one reason that this
rule would be particularly burdensome for the LGBTQ community. The rule
would especially harm workers because they are especially likely to
face labor market barriers that make it more difficult for them to find
employment.
Women:
Women make up two-thirds of the low-wage workforce, making them
especially likely to face the unstable schedules that would be punished
by the Trump proposal's punitive time limits.
In addition to the challenges of low-wage work, women are
disproportionately likely to be caregivers, including caring for people
who may not be considered dependents under Trump's proposed SNAP rule.
For example, women are literally 1.4 times more likely than men to
provide unpaid care and help to people who live outside of their home.
While women struggle to manage the challenges of unstable low-wage
work and caregiving, they are also more likely to face workplace
discrimination than men. For example, nearly 36 percent of women who
filed sexual harassment charges from 2012 to 2016 claimed that they
faced retaliation as a result, such as their employers forcing them out
of their jobs or reducing their hours. Therefore, women who face
discrimination may be more likely to be subject to the proposed rule.
African Americans on average have the lowest household incomes among
all racial/ethnic groups except Native Americans. The poverty rate for
African Americans is almost two times greater than the general U.S.
population. These are, in fact, issues that we all face and should be
aware of.
SNAP is a powerful anti-poverty program for all people. In a typical
month in 2017, SNAP helped about 13 million African Americans put
sufficient food on the table. Its benefits lifted about 2.1 million
African Americans, including 1 million children, above the poverty line
in 2015. SNAP also kept 1.2 million African Americans out of deep
poverty--above half of the poverty line--that year.
Approximately $20 billion in SNAP benefits, about 30 percent of the
total, went to African American households in fiscal year 2016.
On average, African American households that participate in SNAP
receive $260 in SNAP each month, just $260.
A typical participating African American family of three has an
average monthly income of $940, or 56 percent of the poverty line. When
their $390 SNAP benefit, the average for a family of three, is added to
their cash income, total monthly income rises by 29 percent, to $1,330.
But this is just an example of what this administration is doing.
One, going against what this Congress has already proposed and agreed
to, bipartisan support, getting something across the line, bringing it
to the President's desk, he signs it, and then through the
administration, agencies, or executive order, attempting to slash at
the authority of this body, of this first branch of government, who in
fact, makes laws.
I know that firsthand, as that is exactly what is happening right now
in the Virgin Islands with the disaster relief funding that this body
came up with.
We recall that this body decided that it was, in fact, going to give
the territories money for disaster relief, and now we are facing FEMA
guidance delays on new resiliency and rebuilding provisions.
Additionally, FEMA denying local administration of FEMA permanent
housing reconstruction programs; FEMA not willing to advance funding
for major recovery projects, taking too long to improve major
worksheets; HUD delaying releasing CDBG recovery funding and
segregating it from the rest of the country; action plan for unmet
needs was approved on March 1, but still no grant agreement 6 months
later, 2 years after the hurricanes; FEMA administrations denying cost
share waivers on FEMA aid, which was given to the Katrina area; refusal
to exercise clear statutory authority to do this for the Virgin
Islands.
This is what this administration appears to be doing: allowing
Congress to come up with bipartisan legislation, whether it be SNAP,
assistance to farmers, food programs, disaster relief, having
bipartisan support in both chambers, getting it across the line,
signing it and then undercutting it, undermining this body, undermining
the democratic process that is in place. We must do something about it.
In January of 1865, when Union General William T. Sherman issued an
order to allocate 40 acres to each freedman, the Black ministers who
lobbied for the policy envisioned vibrant, self-governed Black agrarian
communities dotting the southern countryside. Unfortunately, President
Andrew Johnson's revocation of this order later that year and the
institution of the Jim Crow regime after reconstruction left rural
Black Americans to build their farming communities from scratch.
It wouldn't be the first time the U.S. Government worked to undermine
Black farmers, and it certainly wasn't the last. We are seeing that
even today.
Yet, even in the face of broken promises, not to mention the violence
and discrimination aimed at Black farmers and Black Americans by White
landowners and lenders, those farms secured a foothold in American
agriculture.
At the height of Black farming in 1920, Black farmers operated
925,710 farms, about one-seventh of all farm
[[Page H7898]]
operations in the United States. Today, going from one-seventh, as of
2012, Black farmers make up less than 2 percent of all farmers.
In the Virgin Islands, we recognize this. The U.S. Department of
Agriculture has a long and well-documented history of discrimination
against Black farmers. The unequal administration of government farm
support programs, crucial to protecting farmers from an inherently
risky enterprise, has had a profound impact on rural communities of
color.
We have got to stay on this administration to make sure that all
Americans have a fair shot, not only at food and food security through
SNAP, but also to ensure that those farmers, American farmers,
particularly minority farmers, have a fair shot at being part of that
food production.
We know that in the Virgin Islands, our farmers farm very small
acreages of land, but we are hoping and looking for the support of the
USDA to live up to their example and the ideal that they are there to
support farmers, not to undermine them; they are there to support not
just the commodities, but to those specialty crop workers, those
smaller farmers who are providing food and sustenance to Americans here
in this country.
We know that fresh food is the best food for our children as part of
the school lunch program, and we must expand support for the farm-to-
the-schoolroom programs, those programs that allow local farmers to be
the ones to provide the food for those school programs that are in
place, and not allow the administration to undercut any part of the
process.
We know that the Congressional Black Caucus will be vigilant at
ensuring that this administration does not cross the line, and we will
be vigilant at bringing to the American people the message that this
Congress will not sit back and allow any administration, Democrat,
Republican, anybody, to shirk their responsibility to the American
people.
As the conscience of the Congress, that is our charge, and we will
continue to do that work.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, Congresswoman
Plaskett for anchoring this Special Order on support of the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
I want to express my significant concerns with the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's proposed rule to change the determination qualifications
for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
Currently, nearly 36 million people receive monthly SNAP benefits.
To be eligible for assistance, gross monthly income must be at or
below 130 percent of the poverty line.
44.4 percent of residents in Houston live at or below 185 percent of
the federal poverty line.
In the Houston metropolitan area households with children, 19.3
percent struggled against food hardships in 2014-2015.
In February of 2018, SNAP served 304,542 households in Houston,
bringing in $82,374,563 of 100 percent federally funded benefits,
generating approximately $147.5 million in economic activity.
In Harris County alone, 599,928 people are eligible for SNAP
benefits.
In August of 2019 Harris County received a total of $70.9 million in
totally SNAP payments.
As a result of the proposal 3 million people may lose their
eligibility for food assistance.
States currently have the flexibility to not cut off benefits as soon
as a family's gross income exceeds a certain level, but to more slowly
phase out the food aid.
This is to ensure that those who are at or slightly above the poverty
line do not risk falling below that line.
Additionally, these benefits reduce food insecurity and help
alleviate poverty.
The proposed changes would limit this and cause many families to be
abruptly cut off.
The new proposal jeopardizes access to free school meals for 500,000
low-income students.
Not only does this significantly affect families but also retired
populations that rely on a fixed income.
This would adversely affect food banks around the nation as people
look for food elsewhere.
Forcing families to choose between placing food on the table and
covering other important expenses is unacceptable.
This proposal shows the Republicans' special interest agenda that
gives billion-dollar handouts to big corporations and the wealthy few,
and then steals from children, veterans, seniors and working families
to make up the difference.
It is both cruel and counterproductive, ignoring the positives that
SNAP puts into the economy by creating $1.79 for every dollar in
benefits.
This proposed rule change does not help and support low-income
individuals and families meet their basic human needs.
The current Administration is rejecting the overwhelmingly bipartisan
passage of the 2018 Farm Bill, which made smart improvements that
strengthened the safety net for food-insecure families.
This Administration must commit to implementing the bipartisan
agreement to make anti-hunger initiatives more effective.
House Democrats will always stand firm for the health, well-being and
dignity of America's working families, and will continue to advance our
For The People agenda to deliver lower health care costs, bigger
paychecks and cleaner government that fights for the public interests,
not the special interests.
Thus, I urge the administration to reconsider this proposal and look
at the adverse effects that it will have on our society.
____________________