Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2020

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. MOORE. Madam Chair, I thank the chairman for yielding.

I want to continue to work with the gentleman and the Appropriations Committee's Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies to fight the administration's reprehensible attempts to increase hunger in our country, including through USDA's proposed and harmful able-bodied adults without dependents rule.

As the gentleman well knows, SNAP is a critical antihunger program that helps many families struggling with food insecurity. What I find so counterintuitive about this rule is that the most common reason for seeking SNAP is because someone is losing a job, which is even more critical for those who have barriers to employment or who are already at the margins of the workforce.

As many experts have testified to Congress, the labor market experience of SNAP participants, as it is for so many low-paid workers, is highly unstable, and participants tend to cycle in and out of full- time employment.

This rule would cut food aid for between 755,000 and 821,000 individuals from red States, blue States, and purple States, and from rural, urban, and suburban communities, without any regard to the barriers they may face or the fact that they may live in areas or ZIP Codes or Census tracts that lack jobs, or that companies are moving, or other unanticipated egresses from the workforce.

No matter what people say, there are still pockets of high unemployment rates well above the national average. This body must make crystal clear that we support the vulnerable population of able-bodied adults who are being targeted here and that increasing hunger does not increase employability. It does not create new jobs in rural or other areas with high unemployment. It doesn't remove barriers to employment. It just simply increases hunger.

While there are so many good things in this package that will help to attack hunger and food insecurity, I am deeply disappointed that we are missing the opportunity to use Congress' title I power to block this rule. Let's not go down as the did-nothing Congress when it comes to something so common sense as providing food for the most vulnerable.

I am so concerned about this rule's impact on truly vulnerable individuals. Let's not be fooled because we are calling them ``able- bodied.'' These folks have challenges that make finding work difficult. This includes veterans, homeless people, children who have aged out of foster care, and college students.

The vast majority of SNAP participants affected by this proposal live in deep poverty, with 88 percent of households at or below 50 percent of the poverty level.

Madam Chair, 1 in 10 are working, although less than an average of 20 hours a week. One study found that 75 percent participate in the workforce. Of those who do work but sometimes do not, the majority don't work due to their having lost a job or they couldn't get enough hours. This rule would do nothing to address those issues.

Of those who are not in the labor force, 80 percent of them said that it was due to health and disability. This rule would do nothing to address those issues.

I am also concerned about the impact on States. Despite all the wonderful claims of a strong economy, we continue to hear that all boats are not lifted, which is why the existing flexibility to protect people from hunger when jobs are simply not available in some areas is so critical.

Almost every State has used this flexibility under the existing waiver at some point, including some of the most conservative States. If someone claims to support States' rights, that Governors and local elected officials know best about what is going on in their States, especially where we know economic conditions can vary from county to county, city to city, even ZIP Code to ZIP Code, then you should be opposed to this rule.

Punishing poor people will not help them get jobs.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chair, I rise to thank the chairwoman and committee for including my amendment to increase funding by $1 million for an Indian Health Service program combatting domestic violence in Native communities.

I know the chairwoman understands this issue very well. Protecting women in Native communities was a big focus on the VAWA reauthorization that passed this chamber earlier this year. I want to make sure we provide the strong funding that will be needed to make those changes reality and protect Native women. This is one program that does that.

The Indian Health Services Domestic Violence Prevention Program is a small program but it's having a big impact. The DVPP was established in 2015 as a nationally-coordinated program that provides culturally appropriate domestic violence and sexual assault prevention and intervention resources to American Indian and Alaskan Native communities with a focus on trauma informed services.

The vast majority of DVPP grants focus on domestic and sexual violence prevention, advocacy, and coordinated community responses, with some supporting forensic healthcare services to victims of domestic and sexual violence.

I appreciate the effort made by the subcommittee in the bill to add funding to bring funding for this program back to the FY 2017 funding level. Thank you for recognizing the need and prioritizing a response.

But I think we must do better especially when you consider the staggering need here.

The statistics (as incomplete as they may be) are frightening: American Indians and Alaska Natives are 2.5 times more likely to experience violent crimes and at least 2 times more likely to experience rape or sexual assault crimes than people who are not American Indians or Alaska Natives. More than 4 in 5 American Indian and Alaska Native women, or 84.3 percent, have experienced violence in their lifetime.

There are currently some 83 tribes, tribal organizations, Urban Indian Organizations, and IHS federal facilities that receive funds totaling nearly $12 million from this program. These include projects in my city of Milwaukee as well as in Alaska, Nebraska, and Oregon, among others.

I understand the constraints that the subcommittee faces. The needs always outnumber the resources. But this is a pressing priority. This additional funding will hopefully allow for more grantees serving more tribal communities that can help begin to turn the tide.

I know the chairwoman has been a champion for Native American communities and I thank her for her support of my amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source