assistance program known as s.n.a.p. we will hear from a senior vice president of the no kid hungry campaign and antipoverty advocates. >> the committee will come to order. without objection the chair is authorized to declare a recess of the committee at any time. i now recognize myself for five minutes to give an opening statement. every child deserves the chance to grow up healthy. children should not have to worry about where their next you will come from. that's an unimaginable burden for a young person that can deprive them of their childhood. food insecurity hurts children's academic outcomes, their ability to pay attention and their behavior. it has long-term impacts on physical and mental health and even depresses lifetime earnings. as doctor martin luther king said in 1964, there is nothing new about poverty. what is new, however, is that we have the resources now to get rid of it. that same year in 1964, america enacted the precursor to the supplemental nutritional assistance program known as s.n.a.p. america still has the resources to address poverty and the ability to lift up society's most vulnerable so they can achieve the american dream. s.n.a.p. is one of our best tools for doing that. it provides moderate assistance to help feed americans in need. on average only $1.43 for every meal for participants and nearly 70% of households receiving s.n.a.p. benefits have children. but s.n.a.p. doesn't just help children, the elderly and the disabled that makeup two thirds of its participants. it also boosts the economy more than any other government program. according to moody's, every dollar of snap benefits increases gdp by $1.73. just to repeat, every one dollar of s.n.a.p. benefits increases the national economy by $1. 73. that's an incredible return on investment. and s.n.a.p. creates jobs. according to the usda, every $10000 in s.n.a.p. benefits creates one full-time rural job and approximately every $25,000 in s.n.a.p. benefits creates one full-time urban job. s.n.a.p. dollars are quickly spent on food necessities and flow into local businesses, ultimately supporting trucking and farm jobs, among other things. so this program design to feed children, the elderly and the disabled also boosts our economy and creates jobs, and as this committee is responsible for combatting waste, fraud and abuse it's also worth noting that s.n.a.p. -related fraud is almost nonexistent. s.n.a.p. also gives states flexablity to tailor the program to their citizens needs. first, it incentivizes work by allowing the states to ease income eligibility limits so that someone doesn't have to turn down work to maintain s.n.a.p. eligibility as they get back on their feet. second, s.n.a.p. allows states to let citizens own a car to get to work or save for an emergency like surprise medical bills. the administration currently, through their proposal to change .s.n.a.p., wants to disarm states of both of these tools. but in doing so it will strip 3. 1 million households of their s.n.a.p. benefits, including more than 2 million households with children. it also strips free lunch enrollment from nearly 1 million kids. for those children, the trump administration policy would take food out of their mouths at home and at school and how can we expect those kids to succeed? the ministry needs to abandon this proposal as the late chairman elijah cummings would have said we are better than this. we know what a difference s.n.a.p. makes for families and children who would otherwise go hungry. i know from personal experience. i came to the united states from india with my parents when i was three months old so my father could pursue his education and our family could embrace the opportunities america has to offer. despite my parents's best efforts it wasn't easy. when we needed help we were able to receive food stamps as my parents work their way out of a difficult time. today my father is an engineering professor of 40 years, still teaching at bradley university in peoria, illinois. my brother is a doctor and i am a congressman. that was my family's dream and it was possible because of my parents hard work and also because of the opportunities our country presents and the generosity and goodwill of the people of america. an american president once told congress quote, "that hunger and malnutrition persist in a land such as ours is embarrassing and intolerable". that president was richard nixon. if president nixon and doctor king could agree on the importance of fighting hunger all those decades ago, surely, surely we can find common ground today to continue congress's strong support for s.n.a.p. thank you, and now i recognize chairwoman maloney for her opening statement. >> thank you so much. i thank all of you for coming today. as chairwoman of the committee on oversight and reform, i want to thank raja krishnamoorthi the chairman of the subcommittee on economic and consumer policy for convening this important hearing. i also want to thank him for sharing his personal story and showing how important this program is and how we need to protect food for our families, many struggling, that are wonderful people and i think you really showed the importance of this incredible program. this hearing will examine the proposed rollbacks of broad-based categorical eligibility for the supplemental nutrition assistance program or s.n.a.p., one of the most important programs the federal government has. this is the third in a series of four hearings that we are having this week, examining the negative effects of the trump administration's policies on poverty, housing, hunger and health regulations for children. these hearings are about the trump administration's attacks on children. congress must protect our children and ensure they have the resources to reach their full potential. one in six children in this country is already food-insecure. meaning they lack reliable access to food. according to the u.s. department of agriculture's own estimates, if this proposal is enacted over 680,000 households with children would lose the s.n.a.p. food benefits and nearly 1 million children would like lie lose direct enrollment for free school meals. the administration's effort to roll back broad-based eligibility for s.n.a.p. will increase food insecurity for children across the country and any effort to modify senate should reduce food insecurity and not make kids hungry, especially here in america. i yield back. >> thank you, chairwoman and thank you for your leadership on this particular issue. i really appreciate it. thank you. >> thank you for your leadership, and all of these hearings i think are so important and i shows uniformity of attack on children. we're looking at food, rolling back the poverty standards, losening the controls on toxic emissions into environment, all terribly damaging to children. i think we should put in bills to put them all back and make it law in the country. >> well, thank you, chairwoman. >> thank you. mr. cloud is on his way back from an engagement and he'll present his opening statement following the witnesses. let me first introduce miss lisa davis, a senior vice president for the no kid hungry campaign, and share our strength. thank you so much. mr. zach pethan. principal of jefferson elementary school in the sheboygan area school district in wisconsin. thank you so much. ms. diane sullivan, i'm sorry, i just got caught up a little bit, a advocate and she is with the organization witnesses to hunger. miss tada toney, she's a teacher at oak high school high school in the fayette county schools and of course, mr. adolphsen. thank you for coming, he is the the policy director with the foundation for government account accountability. if you would please rise and rate your right hand, i will swear you. do you all swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you god? let the record show that the witnesses answered in the affirmative. thank you, and you may be seated. the microphones are sensitive, so please speak directly into them. i'll just explain the lighting system very briefly. green means go. red means stop and yellow, unlike with stoplights, here means speed up. okay. so, with that miss davis, you're now recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. good morning. thank you for the opportunity to join you today to share our concerns about the administration's proposed rule to roll back broad-based categorical eligibility or bbce. my name is lisa davis and i'm a senior vice president of share our strength's no kid hungry campaign. share our strength is focused on ending poverty and hunger in the u.s. and worldwide. but we do have a particular focus on children here in the united states. i'm here today to talk about two things. first, to provide a brief overview of bbce and why it is so important for families, and second, how this rule would hurt working poor families, seniors, and individuals with disabilities. first, what it does. bbce is an effective, practical policy. there are many families with gross incomes slightly above 130% of poverty, but who still have difficulty making ends meet and affording food because of high costs of things like housing, childcare, medical benefits. bbce allows these families to remain eligible for s.n.a.p. and free school meals. it creates efficiency and reduces administrative burdened on state agencies and schools, but most importantly, it encourages work. it helps low-income families move out of poverty and build financial security. it allows them to accumulate modest assets to weather an unexpected financial crisis. also helps ensure their children can receive the nutrition they need at home and at school. one thing bbce is not is an automatic pathway to s.n.a.p. benefits. families must still apply and qualify through the regular application process which has rigorous procedure for documenting income and circumstances. indeed, families can be categorically eligible for s.n.a.p. but not receive a benefit because their net income is too high. let me give you an example of who it helps. a single mother with two children who works full-time and earns $12.50 an hour could receive $161 in s.n.a.p. per month. without bbce, if her wage increase by 50-cents an hour her income would exceed 130% of poverty and her family would lose s.n.a.p., ending up with $75 per month fewer in resources. she would actually be worse off accepting a marginal raise. bbce prevents that some supports work by let thing family slowly phase off s.n.a.p. as mom's earnings increase. access to s.n.a.p. is important because a robust body of research enforces that s.n.a.p. is the nation's most effective nutrition program, particularly for children, by reducing food insecurity and poverty and improving a child's long-term outcomes including health, education, and even lifetime earnings, s.n.a.p. provides a return on investment that any corporate ceo would envy and the administration move to lower bbce would be a step back in the fight against hunger, 3.1 million people, more than two minimum who of in families with children would lose the snap bets inu entirely and an estimated 982,000 children will lose the automatic certification for free school meals that results through their family's receipt of s.n.a.p. even though many children will remain income eligible for free or reduced price meals, experience tells us that far too many will fall through the cracks, confusion but eligibility, complex paperwork, human error and stigma create barriers and even though lower cost of reduced price meal is a heavy burden for families saving every dime to cover basics like rent, utilities and gas. what happens when children lose s.n.a.p. and school meals? they face a double whammy of meals lost at home and at school. it exacervates all the other problems the fate, diminishing academic performance, their mental and physical health and the opportunity to achieve full point. food is one of the most important school supplies children have. i work with families living with food insecurity. there are moms and dads working incredibly hard to better their lives and those of their children. often, they hold down multiple jobs, cut expenses to the bone, and yet still find it impossible to stretch their paychecks to make ends meet. one emergency expense like a car repair or a medical bill can set them back for months or even years. i'd like to leave you with one final thought. broad-based categorical eligibility is working. it helps low income families work and build savings, also ensures their children get the fuel they node to grow, thrive and reach their full potential. thank you. >> thank you, ms. davis. mr. pethan. >> it is 10:00 a.m. on monday morning and you are sitting in your third grade classroom. the teacher is beginning to introduce a reading lesson for the day. you're asked to work together with a partner identify words with the same pattern. you look around and think everybody is able to focus on the task but you cannot. it's been 65 hours since you ate a substantial quality meal last friday for lunch at school. your stomach begins to turn and you start to feel anxious and frustrated and unable to focus. all you can think but is the lunch period that won't begin for another two hours. the teacher notices that you are not paying attention and asks you to focus on the partner project and reminds you how important it is to understand this to be a good reader. you think this is not at important to me as it is to you. i'm hungry. you lose a connect with the teacher becauseow believe she doesn't understand you and you begin to tune her out. after several weeks, months, years of tuning the teacher out you realize you are so far behind your peers the idea of catching up seems overwhelming and not worth your energy. you look for ways to pass the time which means talking to your friends and disrupting the class. all of these disruptions got you sent to the principal's office and out of class to avoid the embarrassment of not knowing the material. decide to dropattendance rate . when desperation overcomes you, you decide to drop out of school. with few job skills to enter the workforce with limited options for employment. they do not pay well enough or stable enough to save money or advance your career. you are living paycheck to paycheck. you start a family and want what is best for them. you want what every parent wants from their children, from every background, a better future. you start to work several jobs so you can become financially secure but to do so you're not spending time at home with your family. your kids want you around. your child's school wants you involved but you have to decide, being there for your kids or financial solvency. one of the biggest barriers to academic social skis and social mobility is nutrition. jefferson elementary school in cheboygan, wisconsin, has students like this as well as countless schools in the country. these schools are located in major urban area and a sub-urban and rural communities, even in changes affecting eligibility or students will have an overall negative effect in schools and communities across the country. using the combined average person of students from direct certified families the shown boy'began area school district that four schools eligible for the cep program which is a lous schools to offer a free breakfast and lunch to all students regardless of par tis mission any s. n. a. p. principal. parents no long if have to complete a complex annual free or reduced lunch application but a much simpler alternative income form used to determine if the family is economically disadvantaged. when all students participate in school lunch it creates an environment free of stigma. when all students eat the same meal it is less apparent which students come from low income families. when all students participate without negative stigma meal participation increases. when more students eat a school meal option behavior incidents decline. when all students participate in meal programs we can adjust our schedule to serving breakfast in the classroom which allows teachers and students a chance to share a meal together and build relationships. students and teachers can talk of their lives out of quds, learn important social skills and spot a child struggling and off ever support. the relationships created during the meal times are invaluable to building a school community focused on the whole child. we free parents to focus energy and resources on other needs. parents have to buy fewer groceries because they now their child will have a nutritious breakfast and lunch. parents can focus on spending quality time with their kids rather than frantically preparing breakfast oses lunches. parents can use the saved money to provide other essential needs, save or invest in theie career advance: i changes are made to the eligibility a segment of family will no longer qualify for s. n. a. p. we would be unable to offer free breakfast and lunch to all students. without the options available to students families well be forced to make tough no-win decisions for he their families and an increase in hunger and less educational opportunity and upward mobile for our country's most valuable and vulnerable population. our kids. thank you so much for this opportunity to present this story but jefferson elementary school. >> thank you very much. really appreciate it. miss sullivan, you're on the clock for five minutes. >> chairman and members of the sustained committee, thank you for the opportunity to present testimony before you. i am diane sullivan, mother of six from medford, massachusetts. i have experienced hunger, homelessness for a year with my family and have been an antipoverty advocate for 20 years. i seek to create meaningful seeds at the table impacted by harmful policies like to michigans proposal limit eligible in the s. n. a. p. program that allows individual states to consider the local economic conditions when determining which of their residents qualifies. my family is among the 3. 1 million americans who will lose s. n. a. p. benefits if this proposal rule stands. i live with four of my children two, high school students and two recent graduates. because my two daughters work and in addition to my own, income from their part-time jobs is also considered when determining s. n. a. p. eligibility. our combined monthly gross income is $124 above the federal snap income limit of 130% fpl for a family of five. but because my state applies broadened categorical eligibility and my work related expenses are considered, our income after deductions currently qualifies us for $187 in monthly s. n. a. p. benefits. my state ranks third highest in rental housing costs, second in childcare, and first in terms of the cost of our food. at that time categorical eligible allowed states to consider these barriers to food faced by residents. massachusetts allows for households with incomes up to 200% fpl to be considered for s. n. a. p. not eligible, but considered. counter to the administration's rhetoric i didn't just wander into an office, receive a pamphlet, and walk out with s. n. a. p. benefits. that is not at all how this works. our income at 135% fpl only allowed us through the door to then be intensely screened to determine that our income after the deductions falls below the federal threshold then triggering eligibility. in fact it took three months of overcoming bureaucratic confusion, for us to be found eligible. still, we are recovering from the time when we weren't receiving the benefits for which we were eligible. it went beyond reducing the number of healthy meals and snacks for my children, particularly my two teenaged boys and meant i was dipping into funds meant for rent utilities and visiting food pantries to feed the family. adding to the traumatic of these struggles, the 16-year-old vehicle i was gifted five years ago broke down. this delicate juggling act result inside a solemn 2019 holiday season. i my children do not ask for much. they're respectable and caring young adults about that doesn't minimize the pain i as a mother like so many others, who had a plan to celebrate them by fulfilling their modest wish list and filling their bellies with a holiday feast. instead i felt as empty as the space under the tree where their gifts should have been. as we sat and ate the one pot meal i had prepared for which we were all grateful. during those months the fruit bowl on my kitchen table often sat empty. i stretched the meat and veggies intended for one meal into two. my fear is that we will be pushed back into the same situation if this rule is implemented. without s. n. a. p. , in addition to having less food at home my sons could lose access to free school meals. even if they qualify for reduced cost that's $252 in an annual expense, my already overwhelmed budget cannot absorb. further we would lose access to the healthy incentive program. that makes purchasing fresh produce from local farmers more affordable. mr. chairman i'm an active advocate for neighbors who struggle to afford food in the nation of agricultural abundance. the past few years have doubt me that productive farmer who do produce the safest, most diverse and affordable food options in the world are perhaps among the best friends that low income people could have. increasingly corporate retailers, policymakers and food activists are placing burdens on farmers that drive up food prices. low income families are caught in the middle between one ideology that makes food more expensive and the other which erodes the safety net. this proposal like many burdened placed on farmer is designed by people who can afford to not even look at food prices when they shop. please understand from someone who has worked hard, struggled and still has raised some really good children against the odds, this s. n. a. p. proposal is a gut shot to those least equipped to take the blow or to fight back. thank you for taking the time to hear not just from policy experts but also from this expert versed in the experience of hunger. thank you. >> thank you very much. miss sullivan. miss tony, you have five minutes. >> chairman, ranking member, and members of the subcommittee. my name iseyeful social studies teacher. we are situated in the southern portion of the state which is struggling due to the declining coal revenue and a crippling opioid epidemic. this majority of my students come from households struggling to make ends meet. many of my students are the primary care givers of their younger siblings. i have students who are homeless, who have lost parents to an overdose, and who are working evening jobs to contribute financially to their families. for these reasons and many more, it is gut wrenching to see a proposal to cut s. n. a. p. benefits that will only hurt these children and families even more. thank you for giving me the opportunity to share how food insecurity is a real and tangible threat to students and their well-being. every day i see the impact hunger can have on a student. academically, students are unable to focus and become inattentive, causing them to miss important and vital information in class. the more information students miss in class, the further behind they fall. food insecurity also affects students in and the family ease emotionally. when parents are struggling to put food on the table, many may feel a sense of worthlessness. children can sense this. especially high school students like mine. we see children bring these issues into the classroom with them. they also carry the emotional burdens they experience from home and from a food insecure home. are i have witnessed this in my students in many ways. ranging from mood swings and irritability to emotional outbursts and beyond. this is a real issue that needs to be considered when funds that provide access to food and nutrition are cut. my real fear and concern is that if this proposal comes to fruition, many of my students, along with thousands of other students in west virginia, will lose access to food at home and at school. while it is true that some of those students will still qualify for free and reduced price meals, it will require their parents or legal guardians to submit paperwork. this is a purposefully unnecessary barrier. there are countless instances when parents cannot complete the required paperwork. just in my community, i can tell you that this could be due to pride, shame, or an incapacitation as a result of addiction. almost a decade ago my school district recognized thed in to combat the food instant security plaguing our students. we including a universal feeding flame our excess levy so all students no matter the so-you're economic status received free breakfast and lunch. this is a combined evident of the federal government, our school district, and taxpayers to care for our most vulnerable population, our children. every school in our district qualifies under the community eligibility provision. we receive federal money to cover the initial costs and the money from the excess levy covers the rest. the livy is up for a vote every five years and has always passed with more than a 70% pass rate. the message our district ends is clear. he care but kids and their need for proper nutrition. while i am proud of our universal feeding program it does raise an important question. is it fair to expect the school district to shoulder a responsibility of this magnitude? if this proposal is enacted, many school districts would not be able to develop and implement creative solutions such as the one in my district. are we going to expect teachers, school cooks, custodians and secretaries to begin carrying this responsibility? school employees already carry our students emotional baggage home with us. in many instances school employees try to meet the basic needs of students and also carling for our own families. we love and care for kids. that is why we are in the business we are in. but is it fair to expect to us shoulder this burden, too? southern west virginia, our families, students, schools, and communities are hurting. unfortunately our situation is not unique. the issues we face can be found in cities, towns, and rural communities across the nation. this proposal will do much harm and provide no help to the families that need it the most. the families struggle will be compounded and kids will suffer. we can and must do better. thank you for the opportunity. >> mr. adolphsen you have five minutes. >> chairman, members of the committee. thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning. millionaires should not be eligible for food stamps. neither should someone with $20, 000 in the bank, a new four-wheeler or jet ski in the garage. or the owner of a private aircraft. and state government should do basic checks to make sure only the truly needy receive food stamps. this isn't complicated or conspiracy or even controversial. it's just common sense. food stamps are meant for the neediest americans. i've witnessed first hand how an innocent sounding policy like broad-based categorical eligible, known as bbce, can open the door wide to fraud and abuse. when i was the chief operating officer at the main department of health and human services and oversaw food stamp eligibility, we struggled to maintain integrity in the program. because of bbce. someone on welfare in maine actually owned an airplane. and recently a millionaire detailed how easy it was for him to get welfare benefits legally thanks to bbce. congress did its job in setting eligibility standards for their food stamp program. and congress also had good idea in trying to reduce administrative duplication by allowing automatic enrollment for some other welfare recipients. but what congress meant for good, bureaucrats used as a gimmick. rather than reduce administrative costs, the clinton administration exploited the policy to maximize enrolement. here's how it works. anyone who receives a brochure printed with money from another welfare program is automatically enrolled. with the ridiculous justification that it's the same as receiving a real welfare benefit. that loophole is so bad today that the welfare office often deems applicants eligible based on the possibility of receiving the so-called benefit. they don't even receive that. then no one looks at a bank account. there are no asset checks of any kind. and the income limit is instantly expanded by nearly double in most states. all with the wave of the magic welfare wand. it's the epitomy of welfare fraud and unfortunately it has the federal stamp of approval in more than 40 states. the result is that millions of people with significant assets who are ineligible according to law are on food stamps. many of these recipients have incomes up to double the federal poverty level. that means they could be eligible for food stamps with nearly the same income level as the average american household. for the truly needy who depend on the food stamp program, that just simply is not fair. it's not fair to congress who wrote the law and made it clear that it does not want food stamps for all, but rather food stamps for those who truly need them. the administrative state should never have been allowed to expand welfare beyond what congress sanctioned, and the rule put forward by the trump administration will correct that overreach. because this is such a practical change those opposed to closing this loophole have decided to pivot to talking points about a program that is only loosely connected to food stamps the school lunch program. the truth is, the real impact of this rule on school lunches is virtually zero. in fact, in 34 states, not one single child will lose their school lunch eligibility as a result of this rule. in the other states a child eligible for free or reduced school lunch based on their income level, as set federal law, will remain eligible for free and reduced school lunch. very few, just 9600 out of 30 million kids who receive free or reduced school lunch, may need to pay their portion for the school lunch because they used to be eligible only through the loophole. there may be actually zero impact because kids in continuing eligibility provision schooled will continue to get free lunches regardless of their income or welfare enrollment with no eligibility process at all. those schools give universal free lunch today. the trump administration should be applauded for. this simple common sense rule. especially now in this booming economy, it makes sense to close loopholes and government gimmicks and transition adults and their families from welfare to work, from government dependency to self-sufficiency and the american dream. thank you. >> thank you, mr. adolphsen. i think the example, that's true, that someone owned an airplane and get food stampedes proofs that. >> fraud detection works. and so i'm glad you brought up that example. there's so many groups out there that want to see hungry kids fed so they can succeed and they rose up in strong support of this hearing. i'm going to seek unanimous consent to enter letters into the record from seven of the groups. we're proud to have received these following letters of support. one from president randy wipe garden of the american federation of teacher. a letter from the u.s. conference of mayors signed by 70 u.s. mayors from both red and blue states including mayors in texas, west virginia, ohio and north carolina. a letter from 24 faith groups. a letter from a jewish response a letter from a jewish response to hunger. a alert from the religious action center of reform judaism. a letter from the national women's law center. a letter from the west virginia chamber of commerce and a letter of from a group of chefs who feed hungry kids through the no kid hungry campaign. without objection, so entered. i now recognize ranking member cloud for his opening statement. >> thank you, chairman, and thank you witnesses and let me first apologize for my tardiness. i was across up to at the national prayer breakfast and with the president leaving, we were locked in until they could clear the roads. so i apologize again. i do thank you for being here this morning to talk about this important topic. the sum metat nutrition assistance from known as s.n.a.p. provides nutritional assistants to low income americans who cannot afford nutritional food for themselves and their families. s.n.a.p. has always been defined so by a temporary safety net for those who find themselves in a situation that leads them food insecure. when spoking of welfare reform then president bill clinton said, we need to transform a broken system that traps too many people in a cycle of dependence to one that emphasizes work and independence to give people on welfare a chance to draw a paycheck, not a welfare check, to give those on welfare what we want for all families in america, the opportunity to succeed at home and at work. last july the u.s. department of agriculture, the agency that administers s.n.a.p., issued a proposed rule recording s.n.a.p. categorical eligibility. unfortunately some bad actors and states oft cone veeps have taken advantage of loophole to circumvent requirements for eligibility beyond what was intended. this practice has allowed states to issue s. n. a. p. benefits to individuals whose income may exceed eligibility requirements. and as the administration continues to examine ways to reform government programs i do think it's important for us to keep in mind the country's current economic climate. since president trump took office the u.s. economy has created over 6 million jobs. the unemployment rate has dropped 3.5%, the lowest it has been in this country in 50 years. in 2018 the level of food insecurity in america dropped to 11.1%, the lowest level since 2007. it could seem judging by the title of today's hearing that some may argue that we should blame the president for the number of school children no longer receiving free school lunches. the truth is, none of the administration's policy proposals regarding s.n.a.p. have yesterday to go into effect. when they do, however, 96% of children affected by the proposed rule will remain on would remain qualified for reduced, priced or free meals newspaper the national school lunch program. importantly all eligible children with continue to receive reduced priced or free meals under the national school lunch program so one could say that the president is responsible for the reduction but not because of some draconian heartless policy but rather because the trump economy is providing opportunity and upward mobility across the demographic spectrum, freeing many from reliance on the government. there's still work to be done and always will be. but i hope we can have a productive conversation today in good faith on how to ensure that the fund allocated for purposes are going to those truly in need. these conversations are never easy, but if we can't have these conversations now, when so many are taking steps towards financial independence when can we? studies have shown that states are providing s.n.a.p. benefits to three to four million individual who do not meet basic eligibility requirements. and let remember that at least 96% of those of receiving school lunches would still be eligible should this rule go into effect. with some studies showing even more. i do think it's important today that we keep in mine what real camp passion is. because there's a great tendency month politicians to first convince themselves and then try to convince the american people that our virtuous public service is measured by how much of their money we spend and we can achiever in choosing define success that metrics that measure activity as opposed to efficacy or we can have real compassion that carries to do the hard work and due gel generals to make sure orientees intention as congress are actually producing the desired outcomes as we look to address the needs off our nation we have a responsibility to be good stewards of the people residents money. that does mean from time to time that it's not only right but also our duty to evaluate how programs are working and make adjustments to ensure that the investment our nation is making is have thing desired outcome and being managed efficiently. compassion takes into account both those in need and those working to fulfill the need, and even more so, those that will come after us. as our constitution states, our purpose is to secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and also for our posterity. thank you, chairman and i yield back. >> thank you, mr. cloud. i now recognize myself for five minutes of questioning. miss davis, it's our understanding that fraud is almost nonexistent in s.n.a.p. can you explain that and tell us why s.n.a.p. is so effective at preventing fraud and would you mind addressing mr. adolphsen's community inside that regard. >> i'd be happy to. s.n.a.p. has one of the most effective antifraud record offed any government program. less than one percent of benefits are paid improperly, and there are dribble penalties -- criminal penalties for people who violate the law and engage in criminal conduct suspect should be. the vast majority of payments are paid to families that need them. i think it's one point i'd like to make this rule doesn't close a loophole. it slams a doorway out of poverty shut for working families. i think we all share the belief that a good job is the best way out of poverty and that public assistance policy should foster and encourage work. so that's why this rule is so baffling because broad-based categorical eligibilty does that as well also any other policy i know of. only 2% of s. n. a. p. benefits go to families with net incomes over 100% of poverty it and is a small percentage of the s.n.a.p. caseload that is affected by this. in its own regulatory analysis, sda notice it those most affected are working families with children who have very high costs of housing and child care. they also even noted that the result would likely be an increase in food insecurity and hardship, which is unacceptable. and then finally, if i may for just one more point, on this school meal point, i'd like to clear up the facts. i take exception to the idea that virtually no children will be harmed. 40,000 kid will lose free and reduced price meals entirely. and for each one of those kids, that is a very big deal. more than half of those kids will move from free meals to reduced price meals, as ms. sullivan mentioned in our educators and as we hear every day, that might not seem a lot to all of us who are quite comfortable, but to a family that is making tradeoffs between paying for utilities or buying gas to get to work, that is a very significant sum of money, and can have a really profound impact. >> miss sullivan, let me allow you address this issue of fraud. i think that this comes up repeatedly. can you comment on this and mr. adolphsen's comments in that regard, too? >> thank you. this gentleman doesn't know me. but he assumes he does. and i believe he used the term hears how it works. can tell you from my perspective, as a s.n.a.p. recipient how it works. but i think the biggest issue in the reason why there is so much talk and rhetoric, there are assumptions about who we are as people, is that we're not here in this rooms at this tables so would be happy to have a conversation, followup conversation, to really inform him of the realities and i understand that you have worked in a state administration, and i think here's the thing. nobody is going to deny that fraud or waste or abuse doesn't exist. it is next to minimal but why are we focused attention on that? especially when it is such a small portion. what we need to focus on is families like mine who will be impacted. i'm not a fraud. i work. i do everything i can to provide the best. just like everybody in this room does. i want the best for my children. and feeding them healthy food is the foundation for them to build. that's what we need to be focused on. not take food from them. >> there's a misconception you want to be on s. n. a. p. aid. what's your response to that? >> my response is i absolutely do not. we have there's so much shame associated with that. again, he, >> tell us about that. why there is shame associated with s.n.a.p.? >> because people assume that because we're accessing programs that with are frauds because there are people that are out there spreading that type of misinformation weapon -- we've become political footballs in this game. our children, the most vulnerable, the least able to stand up and defend themselves, are essentially being told to do your part, pay your way. i work, i happen to live in a state that is one of the most expensive in the country. our energy costs are among the highest. it is we struggle and we are hardly the only ones. 3.1 million people about to lose benefits, and we know that there's more. we the people that are being impacted need to be in these spaces where these policies are being discussed so we can take back the narrative about ourselves. we know who we are as people. we know our value and our communities and to our families and it's time that we control that conversation and stop allowing people like this gentleman over here to my left, to control that narrative about us. >> mr. cloud, you're recognized for five minutes of questioning. >> i'm sorry. miss miller, you are recognized for five minutes of questioning. >> thank you, chairman. and ranking member cloud. for holding this very important hearing today. and i want to thank ms. tony for being here. she is from west virginia, and it's nice to have another fellow west virginian in the room that recognizes the importance of keeping our children and families fed. this topic is extremely personal and critical to my district, and i want to recognize the fact that everyone who is here today is committed to making sure that people who are struggling receive the help they need to live happy and healthy lives. additionally, adequate nutrition during infancy and early childhood is essential for child development's and wellbeing. the programs we're created to help families and children who are in great need. as i have said before, in this committee, we can disagree on what helps or hurts, but our goals are the same, and i support the administration for the work they have been doing to help guide families off of welfare, and i will fight to make sure that benefits are given to the people that need them. these are our children. we don't want them to go hungry. mr. adolphsen, how many children participate in the national school lunch program annually? >> approximately 30 million. >> would school age children who are statutorily eligible for the program continue to qualify for reduced lunch program price meals? >> yes, ma'am, they would. >> as i mentioned in my testimony, this issue is extremely important in my district. our -- west virginia has struggled. the proposed rule does not effect the eligibility requirements for child nutrition programs. is that correct? >> it does not directly affect the eligibility as laid out for that program in law. >> okay. in the state of the union address on tuesday, the president highlighted that seven million americans have come off of food stamps. this number is exciting when it means that there are people who are now financially stable and can provide for their families. in fiscal year 2017, there were an estimated 42.2 million monthly s.n.a.p. participants. in fy 2020, participants estimated that there were 36.4 million. that's a big difference. in your opinion, is it safe to assume that the 7 million off of food stamps are a result of a stronger economy? >> there's no question about it. record number of open jobs, record number of people going back to work. there have also been reforms done at the state level that have helped spur this change. work requirements have come back into effect in a number of states and we have seen a great results of people moving from welsh welfare to work and back into the workforce. >> i'd like to hear more but your time you spent in the maine department of health and human services. you oversaw operations for their welfare programs. what were the most important key takeaways from your experience and how do they relate to today's discussion? >> sure. thank you for that question. i just as it relates to bbce, i can tell you more what saw and why this has this connection to fraud. when someone is approved through bbce, and 97% of all people on food stamps and bbce states are approved through bbce, there is no asset check at all. so what happens is information that would normally be available to you as an agency, to determine and save their status, household composition, income sources, the agency does not look at that all. so, the challenge there is it opens the door to fraud as i mentioned, the gao said people who come in through bbce three times more likely to have errors and in 2011 the obama administration actually stopped looking at bbc cases for payment errors. and so that isn't even reflected in this percentage of fraud that folks are referencing. >> how many people would that be? >> well, it's hard to come up with an exact number because we don't check assets now. so just a quick example, the largest fraud case in maine history over $200,000 a woman stole, she didn't report her husband lived with her. well, she was on the program through bbce, and so her assets weren't checked. when they later found this fraud through a report, they looked at her bank accounts and her husband was listed as a joint owner of the bank account. that was fraud that could have been caught had we checked things like assets at the front door, which bbce does not allow. >> i yield back my time. >> thank you. i think that we should always make sure to check 100% of the witnesses statistics at this point for their validity. let me turn the questioning over to chairwoman maloney for five minutes of questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank all of you for sharing your testimony today. and in your opening statements you detailed how vital s.n.a.p. is to combating hunger in this nation. so, i'm stunned that the trump administration is taking action that will result in 3.1 million individuals losing their s.n.a.p. eligibility. ms. davis, while food insecurity is a very personal and intimate issue that a family may face, it's unfortunately not uncommon in our country. how many people across the country experience food insecurity each year? >> according to the latest data from usda, more than 37 million people live in food-insecure households in the u.s. that includes 11. 3 million children or one in seven our nation's kids. and people with food insecurity are found in every county, in every congressional district across our nation, urban, suburban and rural. while that number is still much, much too high, i would point out that child food insecurity has declined to the lowest point since 1998 and that's due in large part by actions taken by previous administrations and bipartisan congressional access to strengthen access to s.n.a.p. for families with children. >> what is the long-term consequences to a child's health and well-being if they experience food insecurity in childhood? >> those consequences are very profound. food-insecure children have higher rates of poor mental and physical health. they're more likely to be hospitalized, so suffer from common illnesses like stomachaches and colds, asthma. adolescents experiencing food insecurity face a host of mental health issues and are at a much greater risk for depression and other mental health problems, including suicidal ideation. our report published by the center on the developing child at harvard university highlights nutrition as a key foundational pillar for healthy child development. food access and intake are critical issues that do impact a child's lifelong health trajectory and the cognitive delays that food-insecure children face put them behind their peers at kindergarten and for years to come. >> and yet instead of proposing measures that would help to reduce food insecurity in this nation, the administration prove postal serviced a new rule that would takes s.n.a.p. benefits away from 3.1 million people children. miss sullivan you're a mother and i can only imagine the struggle that you face to provide food for your children each day. can you explain how important s.n.a.p. has been to your children in. >> absolutely. there have been times as a parent, there's probably no worse feeling that you could experience than putting your children to bed on an empty belly and i think back to those types where i've been there. and i was as a breast-feeding mother, unable to take in calories enough for myself to then produce enough milk to sustain my newborn daughter at the time who then as a result of the physical impacts of not taking in enough calories, she herself then had to then attend physical and occupational therapy to rebound. we're talking but a newborn. so in times when s.n.a.p. has been available let me just make one thing clear. normally families -- i have myself -- i will wait until the very last minute because there's nothing to me it is a very traumatic experience to walk into a state office and ask for assistance, and it is a reminder you have hit rock bottom. just of the intense trauma of the moment. in those times when i've been able to access s.n.a.p. benefits that we're eligible for, i'm able to provide for my family. again, doing what we all want to do. having something children are able to grab on their way from school to work, to their activities. literally just having enough food so many times if have cried myself to sleep and i am not alone. there are millions out there, because i didn't eat myself that day and was uncertain how i would feed my children the next day. and this is the reality. the reality that so many of us face. >> miss tony and principal pethem, how would the administration's proposal fabling the ability of your children in school come to school ready to learn? >> thank you for your question, congresswoman. our kids, in order to be their best selves, in school need to come with a full belly, and with the knowledge and the thought they will be food secure. academically, students learn best when they feel secure in their food, when they are not experiencing a thought of where will my next meal come from? what am i going face when i go home? will there be food at home? they come to school for the meal, many students in my district do and if we are talking about making them academically successful, physically successful, emotionally successful, and mentally successful, food security plays a large role in the bigger picture of that. through a lot of different ways. through the stigmatization that mr. pethan spoke about to the academic will being, the physical will being can being healthy enough to be in the classroom, to not miss class for doctor appointed or hospitalizations or anything like that. food insecurity plays such an important roll in the larger picture and we look at is as secondary thing but is absolutely not. it is a primary concern among the people in my district, because i've heard a lot of talking points today about a booming economy. i live, i've been born, ratessed and lift my adult life in the third congressional district of west virginia. we're one of the poorest congressional districts in the nation and i'm here to tell you that in my rural areas. the economy is not booming and the kids need this help. these -- we talk but bootstraps. these are the boots for these kids. this is the help they need. thank you. >> my time has expired. i yield back. >> thank you, chairwoman. i now like to recognize ranking member cloud for five minutes of questioning. >> thank you, mr. chairman. if i could just start off by saying miss sullivan and the rest of you all, i appreciate you all being here, miss sullivan i want to specifically say i appreciate you being here and i hope you don't feel shame. that's why it's there. that's why the program's there. and i do think it takes courage to be here today to tell your story, so i do think, and honestly i realize in the polarized environment you're walking in, from what you see on tv, a lot of times people walk into thieves situations with entrenched positions but there are those of white house, working to find the way to preserve the program for those while really need it while also finding that nexus where we can deal with issues and streamline it to be be efficient and that's a good honest conversation to hear. mr. adolphsen, now this is a little wonky. we just heard the rule changes s.n.a.p. is that actually right or is -- could clarify the connection. it's not really as direct as it's being -- >> sure. yes, sir. so the rule that is being discussed is a change to s.n.a.p., not to the school lunch program. the s. n. a. p. elegibility standards as set in federal law, as have been mentioned, you cannot have income over 130% of the federal poverty level and you cannot have liquid assets of available to you, cash, recreational vehicles, things you could quickly liquidate to cash, in excess of, $2,250. so, the broad-based category eligibility loophole does away with that test and raise the income threshold up to 200% in most states and 185 or 165% in other states. where the school lunch comes into play is that if you're on s.n.a.p., you're automatically eligible for school lunch with no application. and that's what some folks are talking about, that there's a group of students who may have to apply with a school lunch application and i grabbed one here from the state of maine. it's one page. they may have to apply through that application but they will still maintain their eligibility, just won't be automatic. >> and you -- it was also stated that 3 million people would lose s.n.a.p. benefits, but can you explain the difference between losing eligibility vs. actually losing benefits. >> sure. right now there are approximately 5 million people who are ineligible by federal law standards, and when this loophole is closed, in broad-based categorical eligibility, that pathway is closed, it will go back to categorical eligibility. if you're actually receiving a welfare benefit, you will still be automatically eligible for food stamps. that is not changing. the only thing that's changing is you can't get this brochure handed to you and thus getting rid of the asset test and increasing the income limitment that piece of it will away. so then we'll go back to the federal standards that are in law that congress passed, both income and asset limits. >> so you're basically saying that the executive branch is working to realign regulations with the stated will of congress as passed in law? >> that's correct. the bbce rule was created entirely through regulation. at the time, the clinton administration even acknowledged that the intent was to expand this to people who are actually getting a benefit, not just receiving, or in many cases not even receiving a marginal tanf funded brochure, and they acknowledged that at the time. but it has taken on a life of its own, obviously, as 42 states are using it and millions of folks have come in through that pathway. so this rule simply reorients the eligibility policy at the practical level on the ground, with what congress actually passed in law. >> okay. and so constitutionally the proper way to fix the is for congress to act if it wants to change this law. >> absolutely. i mentioned in my remarks, it you want to geoff everyone in the country food stamp you have authority to do that. pass the law and signed into law and think take effect as the law stands right now this regulation sits squarely outside of that and it's really incumbent incumbent on the administration to correct that. >> i'll tack that back. >> miss davis, okay, so basically what is going on is they want to make a uniform $2,250 asset test for the entire united states and they want to say that no state can raise the income level beyond 130% of the poverty line which is uniform for the entire united states. can you comment on that and why states would actually want to raise the income levels and asset test depending on what part of the country, new york city vs. west virginia, for instance? >> yes, thank you. first, if is easy focus on things like a brochure gets you on to s. n. a. p., which isn't true. receiving a brochure guarantees no one s. n. a. p. benefits. people still have a interview, must document their incomes. many people may categorically qualify but their net incomes are too high to get a benefit. congress intended to give states flexibility during perform and that is well-documented but also intended to encourage work and to encourage efficiency across programs, two things that broad-based categorical eligibility does very well and one thing that's very important to understand with talk of millionaires and people with airplanes is that this policy helps working poor families with children who have incomes modestly above 130% of poverty, gross incomes before deductions for things like high housing costs, high childcare costs and out-of-pocket medical costs are deducted and only. 0.2 percent of s.n.a.p. benefits are going to people with, net after those deduction, incomes of 130% of poverty so it's not an automatic gateway. it isn't a policy benefiting millionaires and it supports and encourages work and as you know, housing costs in boston are very different from housing costs in great falls, montana where i'm from. childcare costs are high everywhere. in many states care for an infant and cost more per year than in-state tuition for college so states need this flexibility and it helps them make work pay for their population. >> thank you. i would now recognize congresswoman porter for five minutes of questioning. >> thank you very much, mister chairman. mister adolphsen, how much do you pay each month for electricity and how often? >> how often? each month. i could get my phone out and check exactly. >> would you? >> about $180 to $200 per month depending how many lights the kids leave on. >> how many children do you have, may i ask? >> i have three children. >> school age? >> they are not, one is in kindergarten. >> and the other two are younger, correct? how often you pay for sewer? >> once every four years when the septic comes to clear it out. >> how much and how often do you pay for renters insurance or homeowners insurance? how much and how often do you pay for homeowners insurance? >> let's see, that's once a year i purchased that policy. >> how many hours did you work last week? >> i don't know. >> what is your hourly rate? do you know your hourly rate of pay? as you sit here today? >> yes ma'am, i know how much i get paid. >> hourly? >> i do not get paid hourly. >> do you know right now how much you get paid, calculated hourly? >> what does this have to do with broad-based categorical elegibility? >> i get to ask the questions with all due respect and you can answer them or refuse to answer them which is your prerogative. do you know your gross pay before deductions? >> i do. >> do you know what day of the week your paycheck is received on? >> yes i do. >> what day is that? >> i'm not going to answer that. >> let's go through, do you know whether you own any certificates of deposit? >> i know my financial situation quite well. >> how about your account number or your ira, 401(k)? >> my account number? i don't have that handy but i could get it in about 11 seconds. >> tick-tock. i'll wait. >> going to be respectful and keep my phone in my pocket as we were asked to do. >> the reason i'm asking all these things mister adolphesen is i want to show you what the state of maine's application for food supplement looks like for s. n. a. p. >> yes ma'am i ran the program for four years. >> this is a six-page application for s. n. a. p. i asked you a handful of these questions. to fill all of this out, there's so many pages i'm dropping them, i apologize. this is a handful of what you would have to fill out. this is information that is much more extensive than for example i am required to provide in my congressionally -mandated financial disclosures as a member of the house of representatives to the american public. are you aware -- does the research -- what does the research say about what happens when you increase the paperwork and informational burdens on applications for things like s.n.a.p. or cash benefits? what does the research say? >> i'm not sure what research you are referring to. >> the research conducted by folks like elder shafir and others about what happens when you leave the paperwork application will burden longer, what happens to eligibility. >> i can tell you my experience in maine administering the program was that the vast majority of applications were completed online or on the telephone, not through paper application and we actually under my watch, undertook a process to streamline that even further so that it would be easy for folks to get on the computer. we set up kiosks right in the regional offices where we provided computers and support for people. >> are those offices open on nights or weekends? >> we had night and weekend hours, we changed our staffing rotation to give two nights of the week where we stayed open. >> i commend that. i think that's important. with that i will yield back. >> thank you congresswoman. ms. davis, do you want to comment on the application forms? what type of burden does that place on applicants depending on the length of the questioning and the forms? >> a number of studies show that the more questions, the longer the form, the less likely people are to get through the process and there have been several points today about how many of the kids who will lose direct certification through s.n.a.p. will still be eligible by filing an application. i think if you talk to any school district around the country, they will tell you that that is a challenge. in this case, usda itself has admitted they do not have a plan to inform those impacted and to reach out to them to let them know their kids will be eligible. i think for families that are losing s.n.a.p. and their kids are dropping out of free meals, they may assume that they are no longer eligible. paperwork complexity, human error, stigma, there are so many barriers and because so many kids over the cracks and those paper applications aren't getting done accurately or getting done at all, congress mandated the states to do direct certification between s.n.a.p. and school meals because it's more accurate, it's more efficient and it's more effective for catching those kids. >> thank you, miss davis. without objection congressman sarbanes shall be permitted to join the subcommittee and be recognized later. right now i recognize congressman homer for five minutes of questioning. >> thank you mister chairman and my questions are going to be centered around the able-bodied adults without dependents rule. for mister adolphsen and i apologize for the questions you got earlier, i don't know what the purpose of those were but unfortunately, the civility and common sense in congress is sometimes in a downward spiral here. that is to help when the speaker of the house rips up the state of the union behind the president after against his remarks that for another day you and one disagrees with that we can debate that here but let's get back to what's important and that's governing. with respect to the new rule, before the december 2019 usda rule on work requirements, however state taking advantage of the waiver systems as it relates to work requirements for able-bodied adults without dependents? >> thank you. on the avon rule, what states were doing is a were taking counties in various areas that had very low unemployment. they were grouping them with other unrelated county that had high unemployment, higher unemployment and they were getting permission to waive of those work requirements across the board, in california for example a wide waiver even among counties was 2 and 2% unemployment. >> how many states were waving the work requirements? >> more than 30 depending on what time period you pick. >> how does the 2019 usda rule seek to clarify and update work requirements for able-bodied adults without dependents? >> for those 18 to 49-year-old, we have a lot of the adults with no kids, what the rule does is it simply changes the criteria to be more in line with federal law which says that an area that has high unemployment can receive a waiver, and so what the rule does very generally is it makes sure that those waivers can only apply in specific areas that actually do have an economic depression or downturn. >> during your term with the maine department of health and human services how significant was the implementation of work requirements? >> from an administrative perspective it was no more difficult and really any of the changes that we often receive from our legislature through regulation. we did some work to make sure that folds had a place to go to education and training. if they chose to do that, and we work in our department of labor to set up those career center one stops and those kinds of things. >> museum where the implementation of work requirements could have actually helped s.n.a.p. recipients? >> absolutely, we've seen that in states across the country. loretta, mississippi, arkansas come to mind. we can study their following each individual person who work requirements applied to. incomes more than doubled in a year. folks went back to work in hundreds of different industries and they're doing much better now, earning more and enough to replace the benefit and more. >> could you explain how usda's december 2019 work requirement rule seeks to ensure that s.n.a.p. recipients achieve self-sufficiency? >> the bottom line is we got one of the greatest economies that we've had in decades and we have nearly 7 million open jobs and the usda look at these waivers and said we need these folks, able-bodied and -- to get into these jobs. get off the sidelines and into the workforce. it helps them and helps our economy. >> that's exactly right and the biggest complaint that i hear from job creators and business owners about my congressional district throughout kentucky is the fact that they cannot expand their business. they're not going to invest additional capital because they don't have confidence that they can fill the open positions that would be created and we already have in my district which is a poor district, tens of thousand of jobs open right now, and if you poll the people, the working people in my district and ask, if you support work requirements for able-bodied adults, that receive any type of welfare benefits, that would poll close to 100%. so this is something i appreciate the administration trying to adopt and anything i can do to see that this happens, i'm certainly going to do it because that's what the people in my district want with that i yield back the balance of my time. >> miss toney, 43 of 55 counties provide meals to students in west virginia thanks to categorical eligibility. what is the cost of letting the kids go hungry >> we're talking about human capital and talking about actual people. where not talking about data on a spreadsheet or were not numbercrunching. the cost is immense, and if we let these kids go hungry, we're playing reckless with their wellbeing and their future as well because honestly this is the future of our country and we're leading by example read academically these need this nourishment for their brains to be able to focus and be attentive in class and i outlined in my opening statement if they are not attentive in class and if they are unfocused, they fall behind which leads to behavior issues and we all know the statistics on children who fall behind in class and who are subject to behavior issues and how that affects them in their long-term longevity in the school system, not to mention the emotional well-being, the mental wellbeing and i am proud of my district for what we've done with our universal feeding program because we have removed a lot of the stigmatization that surrounds students that can afford lunch versus students who may be on a free or reduced lunch plan. however, that is not -- that is the exception and that is not the rule for districts across the nation. we really have to remember that we are looking at people, we are not looking at numbers on the spreadsheet. >> thank you. that question was from the west virginia chamber of commerce now i'd like to recognize congresswoman tlaib 45 minutes of questioning. >> thank you chairman so much for your leadership and having to hear in on a critical issue in our country. miss sullivan, yesterday one of my residents texted me, "speak the truth, even if your voice shakes", and i just want you to know i appreciated you speaking up. you spoke about something that i think is really important and as a former community organizer, one of the things we do is make sure that we bring people in the room that can't be in the room, and when you spoke up you did that, so thank you so much. i want to ask a question for all of you. do you think children can learn if they are hungry? >> absolutely not. i think if you ask any teacher in this country or any parent, kids can't come to school hungry to learn if they are just plain hungry and we do a survey of teachers every year and what we find is that three out of four teachers say that they regularly teach kids are coming to school hungry. and the data bears that out, too. >> yes, sir no what the principals have said. >> absolutely area that everybody has been hungry at one point in their life regardless of eight and it's difficult to focus if you are an adult but much more so if you are a young child that's six years old and trying to figure out what's going on in class and if you don't have a stable meal in your belly when you come into school it makes it extremely difficult i would even argue that even if it is, if it affects many students or just one child in your class as a teacher, miss toney can explain it takes one child that's hungry that can disrupt the class that affects all of the students in the class. >> i'm sorry, but yes, sir no. >> unequivocally no. >> hunger is painful and students cannot bear that burden. >> how about you? can children learn if they are hungry, yes or no? >> not my kindergartner. >> there's been a lot of discussion about assistance, public assistance and so forth and this kind of trying to prevent fraud. this comes up and i want to tell you all, in downtown detroit right now i have the third-poorest congressional district. they, the politicians, the elected folks there decided to shift $400 million away from school aid to an adult playground downtown. it's a hockey stadium. $400 million away from school aid fund into a profit hockey stadium for a billion-dollar development. a billionaire was building it. in exchange, the promise was to qualified to be able to say give them the green light to do it is to hire 50% local residents to develop the 39 lots that they got for a dollar in downtown detroit. at the end they didn't do any of those things. broken promises. you think that's fraud? yes, or no. >> i don't know that i'm qualified to speak. >> does that sound like fraud to you that they took public dollars, $400 million away from school aid in exchange for promises they made that they were going to do to benefit the whole community because they subsidize their stadium. >> i can say that's a promise broken and if we did that at our school we would be -- >> if you had food assistance they would make you pay. >> it sounds like fraud to me. >> it sounds like fraudulent immoral behavior. >> how about you, sir. >> yes ma'am, sounds like fraud to me. >> absolutely. do you know what we could have done with the $400 million, not only feed children but we could have funded 218 new teachers in the detroit public school system where we had a deficit of 200 teachers before the school year began. that's what we're doing. but we do not talk about thenm as committing fraud. when moms accidentally don't bring in their wage stuff, i get calls all the time, i didn't submit the documents in time, can you help me, or this was off. or they were doing to asset test on a car they got from their mother. all of that. they're deeming it's fraud. where a company that is making billions of dollars and selling concert tickets, everything. literally high schools in my district, you can see it from the stadium. down the street from the stadium, we had to shut down the drinking fountains of the water is contaminated. these are the things that we are doing. we are shifting away these public dollars that could be used to feed children because they cannot learn if there hungry. but we don't call that fraud. we call the mother trying to feed her children and do everything possible to do it and sometimes, food, not for coats. not a membership to a golf course. it is food for your children, food for your family. it is food. i'm tired of us treating them completely differently, especially when it's a billion-dollar development that just makes more money off the backs of our kids. you mister chairman and i hope you continue to speak truth, i think it's critically important. >> congresswoman i now recognize -- for 5 minutes of questioning. >> thank you mister chair. mister sullivan, i was struck by your testimony, particularly this line. "shall i revert to the day when i would casually pass up an opportunity to eat today so that my children have a better chance of eating tomorrow? " if you don't mind, could you speak about times in your life that you may have had to do that? >> yes, thank you and i do hope other members of the committee have the time and opportunity to read through my full written testimony. it was a challenge for me. it forces me to relive these very traumatic experiences and honestly i think some of it i've blocked out to the best of my ability. and that's again, the reality of what so many of us deal with. you know, there have been those times when i've looked, i prepared the best of what i could and i'm a great cook. and i've had to ration out food. and as i rationed it out, i'm looking at the plate of one child and the other based on age and where they are and what i feel they need for nourishment was again, ratcheting up this food. and then it gets to me and of course as a parent you look your and put yourself last and that's not singular to me. it's what we do as parents, as providers so there have been on numerous occasions, s.n.a.p. has come into my life at times of need and then i've been able to walk away. i've been sometimes what's called a charter, i've been on and off the program and it's done when it's been intended to do but as i said, as parents there is shame associated with it when we are walking into the spaces where basically the police are trying to keep us from accessing these programs that are intended to assist us. and we're looked at as a fraud before somebody in need. and i can't see enough to what that does to a person's -- of course we can imagine and envision what physically that does a person mentally, what it does to a parent whose again just trying to provide the best for their children. >> thank you for sharing such a personal story. mister adolphsen, if ms. sullivan came to you and she said she's at 140% of federal poverty line and she told you her story, would you believe that she should get food stamps? yes, sir no? >> i would follow the eligibility standards. >> so if she said, i'm having to skip meals and my kids are -- otherwise my kids would go hungry, and i need this and you believed it to be true, but it's %140 over the federal poverty line you would say no, she doesn't qualify. >> personally, i would help. >> while you administrating maine, i'm saying would these affect the case if someone came to you that they were %140 would you say yes, >> with bbc she would she would be almost eligible so i would say yes but under the federal law, she would be ineligible. >> so the trumpet administration is doing is trying to make her ineligible and you would support that, you would think that someone like ms. sullivan should not get food stamps. i want to be clear because i saw your testimony of private planes and all that, let's be honest here. that's not what we're talking about. we're talking about with someone like ms. sullivan who's at 140% of the poverty line should get food stamps. if you want to say that she shouldn't, we took an honest answer and we could just have a difference of values but let's be very clear about the position. >> i'm being honest and the broad-based categorical eligibility loophole that's being closed by this rule, as i mentioned in my testimony, is much more about assets than income, and you heard from several testimonies that income is the smaller piece of this particular rule. and i'm being completely honest about what this rule does. >> let me say -- if i could finish, but with this rule say the federal government? >> billions of dollars. >> exactly. >> it depends on the final. >> so you're basically saying for two to $3 billion you don't know how much it would say which is less than one percent of our defense budget and would deprive millions of ms. sullivans of food. just so we have our priorities, that is basically your policy argument for this committee. >> this is about reserving the resources for those eligible by federal law. >> which is less than 1% of our defense budget that comprises probably 1 million people and mister sullivan of food. >> i'm not prepared to discuss the defense budget at this foodstamp hearing. >> thank you. i now recognize congressman grothman for five minutes of questioning. >> i kind of want to go over this one more time, could you one more time give us an overview of this categorical eligibility? and how it came about? >> certainly, so categorical eligibility is allowed in the federal foodstamp law. it says you are receiving a welfare benefit, you are automatically eligible to be enrolled in the food stamp program. that was congress's effort to cut down on administrative and applicant burden, fine. what happened was the clinton administration came in and they expanded that to broad-based categorical eligibility that said a welfare benefit can be as simple as getting a brochure, you don't have to get an actual benefit from this other welfare program. and by doing that, the income limit is then raised from 130 of the federal poverty level up to 200 percent of the federal poverty level and the acid test is completely eliminated through that process. >> you know off the top of the head what federal poverty is? >> it's in the mid-30, 000 range. >> and asset tests just like on other things means you can be a a millionaire and eligible for the program. >> it ranges widely. we know from usda data that half of these individuals have more than $20,000 in liquid assets. >> is there any downside you can think of to putting people on the lunch program? other than just cost. >> any downside to putting people on the school lunch program? >> correct. >> as long as it complies with the standards that congress set for the program, i see no problem with it. >> mister petran, i wonder if you could comment on your experience. >> what i've seen with the program has been very successful. in our school, we have about 57% of our students are coming from direct certification, which means you qualify for a s.n.a.p. benefit from a number of things including household income. what we've seen and since we've been participating in the cep program is that it has had a direct impact in the amount of meals that have served. in 14-15 before we had the program we had 60% participation in the meals that we had offered and then all the way up to this year we had 96% participation so even though we did have free and reduced lunch applications in the past, that's since the qualify for a free or reduced meal, now we have seen a higher participation and as a result, a direct impact on our student behavior issues. >> when i was trying to get at, mister adolphsen is sometimes it's said that when you give more benefits, it kind of affects the parents because they have less responsibility for their children. i guess i'll put it that way. and it's good if you have more, i guess, buy-in on your children's upbringing. you see any of that or, does that argument appeal to you at all? >> as the parents of children i certainly want to be involved in their operating and taking care of them. i think what we're talking about though is folks who are on s.n.a.p. through bbce, they either to have incomes that are in excess of the federal limit that was set or they have resources that are available to them to take care of themselves and their families without the benefit. >> i guess what i'm trying to get at, are there benefits to giving parents responsibility other than just monetary benefits to the federal government? i understand running almost $1 trillion a year deficit so i don't mean to demise the cost savings, we should always be looking for the cost savings, but you read stuff about it kind of affecting parents as the government assumes more and more of that parental role. >> absolutely. i don't think anyone would disagree that all the literature supports that active involvement in their children's lives by the parents is critical to their success. >> okay. i'll yield the remainder of my time. >> thank you. i think that the trillion dollar deficit was caused by the 2017 tax law added almost $1 trillion to our deficit. it's not a couple billion dollars due to s.n.a.p. benefits. with regard to mister pethan, can you please comment on what this change is going to do to the administration of your school. in wisconsin, in sheboygan. >> we have like i said in my opening testimony we have one of the lowest percentages of unemployment in the country and we're very proud of that. however, a lot of our parents are not accessing that same economy and when we talk about jobs i think it's fair to mention that there is a difference in the quality of jobs or the pay that parents are eligible for. certainly there are jobs that can provide a family wage and some cannot, which force parents, like i said, to make a decision between being there for your child or picking up a second job and trying to work that. as far as the administration in our school we talk frequently about the stigma that some of our parents and students have about participating in the program. before we were able to offer this to everybody, our staff didn't feel it was comfortable to being breakfast in the classroom by having some students watch another student eat. by doing this and by participating in the cep program directly is a result. >> and what that means is that now we can offer those breakfasts in the classroom to all of our students and that is something that our teachers have extreme buy-in in and they see the value and they can see the benefit. our data proves that, and we're very happy with this program and roll this back would force us again to make tough choices where we are going to have to get some food to some students and others would not, simply because their parents missed a box on an eligibility form. >> that sounds crazy to me. congresswoman, can you please educate us with your questions? >> first mister chairman, i'd like to enter into the record with unanimous consent to submit the long form s.n.a.p. benefits from the main department of health and human services that was referenced by my colleague representative porter. >> without objection, so order. >> you again for this hearing, people to our witnesses for sharing your devastating albeit compelling testimony, i'm really just having a hard time here because just the stereotyping and the criminalizing and the villifying of the poor. being poor is not a character flaw. there but for the grace of god go all us. hardship does not discriminate. it is transcendent. and i'm so tired of my colleagues from the other side -- we had a hearing in another committee about student debt and the impact of this $1.6 trillion crisis on credit reports and in that hearing they made assumptions about well, if you can't afford it, then just don't take up alone when we have veterans who are defaulting on student loans because of multiple deployments. stop stereotyping who is struggling because under this administration, more people are struggling than ever before because donald j trump if nothing else is an equal opportunity offender and abuser. this is child abuse, that's it. cruelty is the point and so far as i'm concerned, this administration has blood on their hands because of the humanitarian crisis at the border, because of money allocated but not released to puerto rico, because of the scourge of public health, the public health crisis and violence that is gun violence that they refuse to act on and now starving children. the cruelty is the point. and then, the occupant of this white house in a so-called state of the union address when your stories tell the truth of the state of our union, a so-called state of the union address which turned into a divisive campaign rally speech, and there are so many outright lies and baseless claims i can basic barely keep up but he has the nerve to then invoke god and faith and to express a newfound interest in ensuring quote, "that every baby has the best chance to thrive and grow", and to remind us "that every human life is a sacred gift from god". well, the autoimmune disease alopecia universalis has robbed me of my hair but it has not robbed me of my memory and i spent plenty of time in sunday school and in matthew 25:35, this administration has forgotten about "the least of these". so this is an ironic assertion to come from this administration. putting more than 3 million individuals, pushing them off of snap including more than 1 million children. in massachusetts more than 100,000 people stand to lose access to benefits including 72,000 children. it's very apropos during this time of year to quote doctor king, but who doesn't get quoted enough is coretta. she said starting a child is violence. punishing a mother and her family is violence. and contempt for poverty is violence read let me be clear, this administration's attack on s.n.a.p. is nothing more than violence waged on the most vulnerable among us. our children, the elderly individuals with disabilities, the poor and the sick. so by a show of hands, how many of our panelists believe that the trump administration's eligibility changes to the s. n. a. p. program will ensure that our children have the resources they need to thrive and to grow, by show of hands? who believes these changes will ensure that? so it appears that most of us are not fooled and once again, as is always the case with this administration, the cruelty is the point. so let's unpack the real impact of the trump administration's proposed changes will have on children and i know i'm running out of time here so we've spoken already about the destabilizing effects of this learning and on health holistically but ms. sullivan ms. davis if you would the long-term effects, not just the short term which immediately shows up at the long-term effects of food insecurity. of starving a child. >> yes, and i have again lived experience. that i've been homeless with my children, experienced hunger during those times and i have children who have been held back in school and i can the personal trauma but there are public costs associated with this, children repeating grades. the cost to the medical, for medical expenses, to respond to the physical fallout and again i talked about what that does to a parent mentally, it's very traumatizing and our children feel that and they live that even though we try our best to protect them from that. >> congressman, you are >> thank you. >> thank, you congresswoman press the. congressman sarbanes, you're now recognized for five minutes. >> thank, you mister chairman, and thank you all for your testimony. i very very much appreciated. you know, what i'm thinking about these new rules that the trump administration has rolled out, i was reminded, i went back to try to find this, of ed mace, who is our attorney general under president reagan, made a comment where he said that people go to soup kitchens because the food is free and it's easier for paying for. he just thought it was a convenience thing. i remember the outcry at that time, the callous list of that comment. people don't reach for these benefits, or take advantage of the opportunity to access snap benefits because it's just more convenient then go into a restaurant or paying for it at a supermarket. they go because they have a desperate need for it and its offensive to suggest either explicitly, as was done 30 years ago, or to suggest implicitly by rolling out this kind of new policy that that is the case. i bring to this discussion a conviction that our schools are a tremendous opportunity to respond to the needs of children across the country, both in terms of nutrition, which is what we are speaking to today, and health. i'm a very strong performance -- proponent, as many of my colleagues are here, for bolstering the school based health, but obviously that works in concert with making sure nutrition is available to young people for all the reasons that you've discussed very powerfully and i thank you for that testimony. so, i wanted to ask the kind of a more open-ended question and whoever wants to answer is invited to do so and that is, does america know that we're hungry? it's incredible to me that so many millions of americans, including millions of children are going to bed hungry every night in this country of tremendous wealth. now, i know that people are charitable and they are generous. you look at food drives. you look at the food banks across the country. so, do we not know that were going hungry in this country? are we hiding it away? i mean, hearings like this one bring momentary focus to the question, but the more you pull back the curtain on this data and work, how unbelievable it is so, just speak to that because you all are testifying in operating in a place where there is that heightened awareness insensitivity to this issue but you must scratch your head from time to time and, wonder how is it that we don't bring this more into the open and address it in a more direct fashion, so i invite anybody to risk on. >> congressman, thank you. that's a fascinating question and i think those of us -- are aware. unfortunately if you've never experienced food insecurity or been around someone who is experiencing food insecurity, you sit from a point of privilege and it's hard to look past that. i'm afraid so. >> also, another piece to this congressman, and is when we are constantly being bombarded with this administration is talking points of stereotypes and people are poor, people are lazy, we are attacking them as a person, we are attacking their dignity, and when america is constantly bombarded by those talking points, we know, better the panelists on this table know better, we work on the front lines in the trenches with this issue every day or we have this experience firsthand. unfortunately we have to overcome some of the other issues that bombard the american people and places a privilege that some may come from. i think it's downright shameful that we ignore this fact that's going on and i think if you are not seeing it every single day and you understand the effect that it has on our future, it's scary, it's scary, i think the problem is big and i feel like were in an overwhelming sense and what do we try to bury it away and pretend we don't see, it i would agree, i think if you are seeing parents, and i work with a lot of parents who are in the situation, they all want what is best for their kids. i've never met a parent in my years of education that i have ever seen where they want their kid to do for, or they don't want kids to be successful in the future, all of the parents i've ever, met in my experience, that have been wanting their case to be better and they look for opportunities not because it is convenient for them but because they need help and i feel like that is my responsibility as a leader of a school and if that is the opportunity i have to help, that is what i'm going to do. >> thank you for your testimony, and just in yielding, back mr., chairman i would say that i see in baltimore every day it's completely hidden away and its clothes in poverty and hunger and despair and frustration that then leads to violence and somehow we have found a way collectively to close that door and turn our eyes away from it and it will haunt us as a nation, and i want to thank you for convening the hearings to bring some light to this issue. i hope we continue to focus, and again, i want to thank the panel experts for your testimony. i yield back. >> thank, you everybody. i think that what we have seen today is that snap works, snap helped people,, it helps, adults, it helps children, it helps educators, it helps the economy, it has the owe us -- lowest fraud rate of practically any government program so, what's the point? what is the real point behind trying to cut back on eligibility requirements. i think it is politics. i think it is politics. it is an effort to show that we are being tough on poor people and in doing so hoping that they correct their ways, that they work harder, that they free load less and that they be better people, but actually the people who utilize these benefits are just like you and me, in fact, i was one of those people. at the end of the day, what we do with snap defines who we are as a country. and to donald trump, i would just say, do not go forward with this rule, do not attack our children, as the late, great chairman cummings said, we are better than this. i'd like to now finally recognize congressman connolly for five minutes of questioning. >> thank, you mister chairman. forgive me for being in and out of this hearing but i had other commitments this morning, and i had a hearing of our own yesterday on the impact of anti poverty programs. miss davis, one of the characteristics, as i understand, it of snap is it gives some flexibility in the statewide -- can you explain that? >> absolutely. izing that one of the reasons cs reaffirmed broadbased categorical eligibility several times over the past 20 years is recognizing that states have different circumstances, the cost of housing is different in l.a. than it is in southwest virginia. i think one thing that all states value and that congress has reinforced is the need to help support families as they work their way out of poverty by being able to increase their earnings and to accumulate modest assets. research shows that if families are able to build assets, they are less likely to be plunged deeper into poverty and deeper into the safety net by one misstep. >> so, the point is states are doing the flexibility to take cognizance of cost liberty differences, there's a big difference between living in birmingham, alabama and living in west virginia, or new york city. the program gives them that flexibility. what would happen if the trump administration policy as propose were to go into effect with respect to those folks? >> i think it will be very burdensome on states. >> but the flexibility changed? >> if the flexibility were taken away, states would face a great burden. if you look at the 183,000 comment submitted on this rule, you will see hundreds from different state agencies, local organizations and the like talking about how devastating it will be for communities, for families,, for schools and for others in the state, and states will incur millions of dollars in costs having to retro fit their determination systems to train employees and all of the other pieces that come with implementing a change of this magnitude. >> so, just looking at who could be affected by this, as i understand it, 3.1 million families with kids could be affected, could actually have the eligibility for snap affected if this regulation were change. that is a pretty large number. >> it is very significant. 3 million people who, more than 2 million of whom are families with children, the rest, seniors and individuals with disabilities, losing snap would obviously impact those families significantly, leading to higher health care costs. communities would also lose out because as we talked about earlier, snap has a multiplier effect. those dollars are sent immediately. 80% of s.n.a.p. a spend in the first two weeks, 97% by the end of the month and they support farmers, truckers, grocery stores, jobs and dollars in the community so there is this ripple effect. >> there's a really good point to make because i remember speaking with some folks in rural virginia talking with the subject several years ago and i was shocked when they told me that the grocery store in their community, the only when they've got, 60% of their business is s.n.a.p.. so, if you make fewer people eligible, it's not only a bad thing for people's nutrition and the health of their kids, but in terms of local economy, you could drive grocery stores or food chains out of business, frankly, if you really materially affect snap eligibility. >> yes, the impact will be widespread throughout the community and we hear time and again that in areas that have not seen a robust recovery where resources are limited, grocery stores stagger staffing. that is when the shopping occurs, that is when cbo reaffirmed recently that as far as a stimulus is concern, snap has one of the biggest banks for buck so when those funds are sent immediately, they go into the economy and help maintain, jobs economic activity and support industries for manufacturing, to trucking, to growing. >> well, i want to thank the chairman for those hearings. in terms of real impact on real people, fellow americans and their kids and so i think there is real value in trying to highlight this issue. i want to thank all you for joining us today and thank, you mister chairman, for having this hearing. >> thank, you congressman. i'd like to thank our witnesses for the testimony today. without objection, all of the members will have five legislative days within which to submit additional written questions for the witnesses to the chair. those will be forwarded to the witnesses for responses. i asked our witnesses to please respond as promptly as you are able. this hearing is adjourned. >> in audible conversation] >>. [inaudible conversation]

Related Keywords

Alabama , United States , North Carolina , Texas , Martin Luther , Illinois , Kentucky , California , Virginia , Wisconsin , Mississippi , West Virginia , Maine , Massachusetts , Ohio , Sheboygan , Americans , America , American , West Virginian , Diane Sullivan , Mister Sullivan , Lisa Davis , Elijah Cummings , Tada Toney ,