[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.

                          ____________________