May 20, 2019 - Issue: Vol. 165, No. 84 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 1st Session

[Pages H3999-H4005]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 CONGRESSIONAL BLACK CAUCUS: HONORING JUDGE DAMON J. KEITH, DISCUSSING 
                    ROLLBACK OF SAFETY NET PROGRAMS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2019, the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Ms. Plaskett) 
is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.


                             General Leave

  Ms. PLASKETT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include 
extraneous material on the subject of this Special Order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. PLASKETT. Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor that I rise today 
to co-anchor the Congressional Black Caucus Special Order hour. For the 
next 60 minutes, we have a chance to speak directly to the American 
people on issues of great importance to the Congressional Black Caucus, 
Congress, the constituents we represent, and all Americans.
  Tonight, we will discuss and honor the legacy of Judge Damon J. Keith 
from Detroit, Michigan, and discuss, as well, this administration's, 
President Trump's, recent attempts to roll back safety net programs.
  Damon Keith, a Federal judge in the Midwest whose rulings championed 
equality and civil rights, notably in a landmark Supreme Court decision 
striking down Nixon administration wiretapping in domestic security 
cases without a court order, died April 28 of this year in Detroit, 
Michigan. He was 96 years old.
  In one of the Federal judiciary's longest and most prolific careers, 
Judge Keith was a fountainhead of regional rulings with national 
implications. He attacked racial segregation in education, housing, and 
employment; conservative efforts to limit African American voting; and 
after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, secret hearings to 
deport hundreds of immigrants deemed suspicious.
  Judge Keith's tenure spanned more than a half century, first as 
President Lyndon B. Johnson's choice for a district court judgeship in 
Detroit, with jurisdiction in eastern Michigan, and then as President 
Jimmy Carter's selection for the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, 
presiding in Cincinnati over cases arising in Kentucky, Ohio, Michigan, 
and Tennessee.
  In a blistering 2016 dissent in an Ohio case that restricted early 
and absentee voting, Judge Keith, even in the later years, worked 
tirelessly and accused two circuit court colleagues of scorning African 
American voters and the memory of Black people slain in the struggle 
for voting rights.
  In a, frankly, emotional rebuke, he incorporated into his opinion 
photographs and biographies of 36 such victims, including the Reverend 
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. ``By denying the most vulnerable the right 
to vote, the majority shuts minorities out of our political process. . 
. . The unfettered right to vote is the bedrock of a free and 
democratic society. Without it, such a society cannot stand.''
  One of America's oldest Federal jurists, Mr. Keith served in the 
segregated Army in World War II, cleaned bathrooms at the Detroit News, 
attended historically Black undergraduate and law schools, and 
witnessed deadly riots in Detroit in 1967.

                              {time}  1945

  My colleagues are here with me today to discuss his legacy and the 
work of Judge Keith, not just for African Americans, but for the 
American people.
  I am happy to be coanchored in the CBC Special Order by my friend and 
colleague from Nevada,   Steven Horsford.
  Mr. HORSFORD. Mr. Speaker, I join with my colleague, Congresswoman 
Plaskett, and I am very honored to be able to join with her as one of 
the coanchors for the Congressional Black Caucus Special Order hour.
  Tonight, as my colleague indicated, we are here to honor the life and 
legacy of a civil rights icon, the honorable Judge Damon Keith, who was 
also a member of the Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Incorporated.
  Judge Keith was born on July 4, 1922, the grandson of slaves, who 
went on to become an internationally revered champion of justice. Judge 
Keith has vigorously enforced the Nation's civil rights laws, most 
notably in the areas of employment and education.
  In Stamps v. Detroit Edison Company, Judge Keith ruled the Detroit 
Edison Company had practiced systemic racial discrimination, resulting 
in fines against the company of $4 million and against the employee 
union of $250,000. He ordered the company to institute an aggressive 
affirmative action program.
  In 2016, Judge Keith wrote a searing dissent when an appeals panel 
ruled that Ohio's voting rights laws did not discriminate against 
minorities by restricting early and absentee ballots. He said in that 
dissent: ``The birth of this Nation was founded upon the radical 
principle that we, as a people, would govern ourselves. And voting is 
the ultimate expression of self-government. Instead of making it easier 
for all persons, unrestrained and unfettered, to exercise this 
fundamental right to vote, legislators are making it harder.''
  He concluded by saying: ``With every gain in equality, there is often 
an equally robust and reactive retrenchment. We must never forget that 
constant dialectical tension. For every action, there is a reaction. 
The majority's decision is a fateful reminder that we can never fool 
ourselves into believing that we have arrived as a nation.''

[[Page H4000]]

  That is a statement that is ever so true even today.
  Judge Keith recalled many of the civil rights activists and innocent 
children who were slain to make sure minorities had access to the 
voting polls.
  They include: Emmett Till, Herbert Lee, Medgar Evers, Jimmie Lee 
Jackson, Benjamin Brown, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and the four 
little girls who were, sadly, killed in the 16th Street Baptist Church 
bombing in Birmingham, Alabama.
  Judge Keith fought on their behalf during his tenure on this Federal 
court.
  Some of his other rulings had a profound impact on American life as 
well, the biggest being his decision that prohibited the Nixon 
administration from warrantless wiretapping in domestic security cases.
  He ordered the Nixon Justice Department to end all wiretapping that 
was not approved by the courts. This was in the midst of the Nixon 
administration's attempt to go after radicals accused of conspiring to 
bomb a CIA office in Ann Arbor, Michigan. He stated it violated the 
Constitution's Fourth Amendment rights from ``unreasonable searches and 
seizures.''
  The Nixon administration appealed his ruling, and the Supreme Court, 
with a vote of 8-0, rejected the administration's claim of 
constitutional authority to protect the Nation from internal subversion 
by wiretapping dangerous radicals without court warrants.
  Along with this case, he ruled in favor of integration of the Detroit 
Police Department and made the decision that deportation hearings could 
not be held in secret after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
  He has left an indelible mark on the judiciary. Judge Keith has 
received over 40 honorary degrees from colleges and universities across 
the country and is the recipient of numerous awards. He was awarded the 
Spingarn Medal from the NAACP, and the Edward J. Devitt Distinguished 
Service to Justice Award, the highest award that can be bestowed on a 
member of the Federal judiciary.
  Judge Keith fought on all of our behalf to make this country more 
just, fair, and less discriminatory.
  Ms. PLASKETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina (Ms. Adams), my colleague.
  Ms. ADAMS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in honoring Judge 
Damon J. Keith, who passed away last month.
  The grandson of slaves, Judge Keith served more than 50 years on the 
Federal bench, where he consistently ruled to uphold civil rights and 
civil liberties.
  Judge Keith leaves behind a legacy of fostering equal opportunity and 
fighting for the little guy. Unfortunately, this legacy is under 
threat.
  The Trump administration is proposing yet another idea that will hurt 
working families. The administration wants to change the way poverty is 
measured to artificially reduce the number of people who are considered 
poor. That means fewer people will be eligible for programs like SNAP 
and WIC and Medicaid.
  I am disappointed, but I am not surprised. The latest attempt to gut 
the social safety net just goes to show how out of touch this 
administration is with the needs of everyday Americans.
  This administration has proposed cutting nutrition benefits for an 
estimated 755,000 people just because they cannot find jobs. They have 
threatened to take money away from the Pell Grant Program that provides 
a pathway to higher education for millions of low-income students.
  The President has consistently tried to cut funding for essential 
programs like Medicaid, public housing, Head Start, and more. And while 
passing a tax cut to benefit corporations and millionaires, the little 
people have been left out.
  We need serious solutions to combat income inequality. Pretending 
that poor people don't exist is not the solution at all. Instead of 
changing the way we measure poverty, we need to strengthen programs 
that help people who are struggling.
  We need to raise the minimum wage. We need a living wage. Working 
hard is not enough if you don't make enough.
  We need to expand access to quality nutrition and housing, and we 
need to make sure that students have equal access to higher education.
  I am proud to stand tonight with my colleagues against the 
administration's ongoing attacks on working people and families and so 
proud to praise and honor Judge Damon J. Keith, who worked so hard to 
preserve our rights.
  Mr. Speaker, I look forward to continuing our efforts to make sure 
that working families and low-income Americans have access to all of 
the services that they need.
  Ms. PLASKETT. I yield to the gentleman from Nevada.
  Mr. HORSFORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congresswoman Adams for her 
leadership on these issues and her understanding of the dire impacts 
that the Trump administration's proposed rule change would mean on 
working families and the poor.
  Ms. PLASKETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Evans), the Congressman and my good friend, whom I have the honor 
to serve with on the Ways and Means Committee. He is fighting for the 
people of his district in Philadelphia.
  Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for their leadership 
and vision for leading this effort, under the leadership of 
Congresswoman Bass.
  I think, as the gentleman from Nevada has demonstrated along with my 
other colleague from the great Virgin Islands, they both have shown the 
kind of leadership that is extremely essential.
  The passing of a civil rights icon like Judge Damon Keith is also a 
time to focus on one of his priorities: helping future generations to 
succeed. This is also a priority of the members of the Congressional 
Black Caucus. Unfortunately, it has not been a priority of the occupant 
of the White House.
  In August 2016, he asked African Americans: What the hell do you have 
to lose? It has been crystal clear in the last few years that African 
Americans of all ages have a lot to lose as long as Donald Trump is in 
the White House. The latest example of this is the Trump 
administration's plan to strip Medicare, food assistance, and other 
basics away from hundreds of thousands of working-class Americans.
  They are trying to change how the Census measures poverty so they can 
count fewer people as poor. As costs go up each year, the fake Trump 
poverty line will take basic benefits away: SNAP, WIC, Head Start, 
school lunches, legal services, and even tax credits under the 
Affordable Care Act that help working people to get healthcare.
  It is basically a backdoor tax increase for those who can afford it 
least. It is an outrageous sequel to the tax cut that Trump and the 
Republicans gave to millionaires and big corporations. It is classic 
Trump: Don't actually solve the problem; just pretend that it doesn't 
exist anymore.
  I stand with my colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus in 
opposing the Trump poverty line change. I stand with all of those who 
did not inherit millions of dollars from a parent like the President 
did.
  Let us honor the work of Judge Keith and others like him by renewing 
our commitment to help lift our future generations. We can do this by 
making college affordable again, raising the minimum wage, and 
preserving the safety net. Each of these proposals will go a long way 
toward repairing the ladders of opportunity and making this a more just 
society.
  This dedication today to Justice Damon Keith is our commitment as the 
Congressional Black Caucus to raise him up in his legacy that he has 
done for all of us in this country.
  It is a real honor as one member of this body, the Congressional 
Black Caucus, that I stand here today to join my colleagues and show 
the kind of support for what Justice Keith demonstrated to all of us.
  So I am here to lend my voice, to make it clear that this is not 
acceptable, retreating on the people, particularly African Americans.
  Since the President made that statement in August of 2016--and he 
made it in the city of Philadelphia--it is clear to me that this is not 
acceptable. Mr. Speaker, we, as members of the Congressional Black 
Caucus, will not stand for this.
  Ms. PLASKETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend and colleague from 
Philadelphia who always stands

[[Page H4001]]

up for the rights of the working class of those in cities and elsewhere 
who are struggling, the working poor.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank him so much for the work he is doing and for 
trying to maintain working neighborhoods in our many cities that are, 
through so much of these rule changes, so much of these executive 
orders, the ones who are being most affected.

                              {time}  2000

  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), 
who is from the city of Newark, New Jersey, our good friend, my good 
friend, and champion as well, of those in the urban areas, as well as 
to others. He has recently taken on issues related to healthcare.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, let me first thank my colleagues, Delegate 
Plaskett and Congressman Horsford for hosting tonight's Special Order 
hour on Judge Keith's legacy and the Trump administration's recent 
attempts to roll back the social safety nets in our country.
  Judge Keith's legacy cannot be overstated. He was an icon for African 
Americans and, indeed, all Americans. He was a Black pioneer in the 
legal field whose rulings took on Presidents from Richard Nixon to 
George W. Bush. For 60 years he sat on the Federal bench and 
consistently ruled in favor of expansive civil rights in this country. 
It is because of Judge Keith and others like him that thousands of 
young Black people have entered the legal profession and rose to the 
top.
  He was a judge who always extended a hand down to help lift others 
up. That is the American way, and it is worth fighting for. Sadly, we 
live in a time when people in power don't always help uplift others. We 
have a President who is doing his best to beat down everyone who 
doesn't think, look, or vote like him.
  Now we see that the President has set his sights on America's 
neediest people. He and his cronies are peddling a myth that the 
vulnerable people who rely on our social safety net are lazy folks who 
just want a government handout.
  But we know that is not true. Some people just need a hand up every 
once in a while. The Trump administration's attempts to roll back the 
social safety net is a life-and-death matter for thousands of Americans 
who struggle to make ends meet. We live in an unpredictable world. One 
day you can be on top, but the next day you might be knocked down. The 
social safety net is our country's promise that we will help people get 
back up again.
  Sometimes people need a little help buying food, or getting 
healthcare, or just scraping by. There is nothing wrong with that. We 
all know someone who has had hard times, and when we are having a good 
time, we need to look out for each other. That is the American way.
  I have said this before but let me say it again: I have never met a 
person who wakes up in the morning and says: ``I want to be poor 
today.'' That is just not reality. And let me add this: I have never 
met a person who wakes up at 5 a.m. to go to her first job; comes home 
at 1 p.m. to take a nap; and heads out to her second job at 4 p.m., yet 
still lives paycheck to paycheck.
  I never knew anyone that said: ``I like the struggle. I like the 
difficulty. I like being poor.'' That person does not exist. That is 
just not how the world works.
  Social safety net programs like SNAP, Medicaid, and housing 
assistance are supplements that help people struggle just a little bit 
less. Yet, my colleagues across the aisle and their friends in the 
White House keep pushing a false narrative that people who rely on 
government assistance to make ends meet are freeloaders or take 
government handouts and buy drugs. The 45th President keeps pushing his 
callous, immoral narrative in order to tear apart our social safety 
net.
  In my district, 17.9 percent of the households rely on SNAP to feed 
their families. They aren't lazy. They aren't addicts. They are 
hardworking people; some of them with two or three jobs just trying to 
make ends meet.
  And now the President is trying to define them out of existence. 
According to reports, his administration wants to change how inflation 
is calculated in the official poverty measure in order to define 
poverty out of existence and deny people access to our social safety 
net.
  Well, Mr. President, that is not going to work for the American 
people. The United States Government should be making it easier for 
Americans to maintain a decent standard of living. The fact of the 
matter is that 70 percent of Americans rely on at least one Federal 
program at some point in time in their lives. The President's focus on 
ripping apart our social safety net with heartless cuts is wrong, it is 
immoral, and it is shameful.
  It isn't about cleaning up waste, fraud, or abuse. It is about 
pulling the rug out from under people. Programs like SNAP are not just 
some unlimited handout for people who are sitting at home doing 
nothing.
  Currently, 44 percent of the people who use SNAP have at least one 
person in the family working. But even though they are working, they 
might make minimum wage and are still below the poverty line.
  When it comes to families with children who are on SNAP, more than 
half of them bring home wages. But the problem is, their income isn't 
enough to actually live on. So when the self-proclaimed billionaire in 
the White House talks about making people who receive SNAP benefits 
work or defining poverty out of existence, he is just repeating the 
same old fake news that the Republican Party has peddled for decades.
  This is unacceptable, and as a Member of Congress, I am here to serve 
the people in my communities, and that means all the people. We have to 
protect our most vulnerable and those in need. Let us end the 
administration's war on the working poor and help make their lives 
better for all of our constituents.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from 
engaging in personalities toward the President.
  Ms. PLASKETT. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands has 
33 minutes remaining.
  Ms. PLASKETT. Mr. Speaker, you can see we have had a lively 
discussion in recognition of Federal Judge Damon Keith. I would like 
include in the Record an article on his obituary from The New York 
Times dated April 28 of 2019.

               [From the New York Times, April 28, 2019]

   Damon Keith, Federal Judge Who Championed Civil Rights, Dies at 96

                        (By Robert D. McFadden)

       Damon Keith, a federal judge in the Midwest whose rulings 
     championed equality and civil rights, notably in a landmark 
     Supreme Court decision striking down Nixon administration 
     wiretapping in domestic security cases without a court order, 
     died on Sunday in Detroit. He was 96.
       His death was confirmed by his daughter, Debbie Keith.
       In one of the federal judiciary's longest and most prolific 
     careers, Judge Keith, a Democrat, was a fountainhead of 
     regional rulings with national implications. He attacked 
     racial segregation in education, housing and employment; 
     conservative efforts to limit African-American voting; and, 
     after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, secret 
     hearings to deport hundreds of immigrants deemed suspicious.
       Judge Keith's tenure spanned more than a half-century, 
     first as President Lyndon B. Johnson's choice for a district 
     court judgeship in Detroit, with jurisdiction in Eastern 
     Michigan (1967-1977), then as President Jimmy Carter's 
     selection for the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, presiding 
     in Cincinnati over cases arising in Kentucky, Ohio, Michigan 
     and Tennessee.
       In a blistering 2016 dissent in an Ohio case that 
     restricted early and absentee voting, Judge Keith accused two 
     Circuit Court colleagues of scorning African-American voters 
     and the memory of black people slain in the struggle for 
     voting rights. In a frankly emotional rebuke, he incorporated 
     into his opinion photographs and biographies of 36 such 
     victims, including the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
       ``By denying the most vulnerable the right to vote, the 
     majority shuts minorities out of our political process,'' he 
     wrote. ``The unfettered right to vote is the bedrock of a 
     free and democratic society. Without it, such a society 
     cannot stand.''
       One of America's oldest federal jurists, Mr. Keith served 
     in the segregated Army in World War II, cleaned bathrooms at 
     The Detroit News, attended historically black undergraduate 
     and law schools and witnessed deadly riots in Detroit in 
     1967.
       In the most prominent case of his tenure, Judge Keith 
     ordered the Nixon Justice Department in 1971 to halt 
     wiretapping without court orders in its zeal to prosecute 
     radicals accused of conspiring to bomb a Central Intelligence 
     Agency office in Ann Arbor, Mich.

[[Page H4002]]

     As grounds, he cited the Constitution's Fourth Amendment 
     freedoms from ``unreasonable searches and seizures.''
       After the Sixth Circuit Court upheld Judge Keith's 
     decision, the Nixon administration appealed to the Supreme 
     Court. At stake, potentially, were warrantless wiretaps in 
     many prosecutions that Attorney General John N. Mitchell had 
     brought against antiwar activists and other opponents of 
     administration policies.
       The high court, by 8-0, rejected the government's claim of 
     constitutional authority to protect the nation from internal 
     subversion by wiretapping ``dangerous'' radicals without 
     court warrants. Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr., who wrote the 
     opinion, leaned heavily on the threat to free speech that he 
     saw in the unbridled government wiretapping of dissenters.
       The American Civil Liberties Union said: ``If this claim 
     had been upheld, there would have been virtually no limits to 
     the range of governmental intrusion on the liberty that would 
     have been implicitly authorized once the government invoked 
     the talisman of `national security.' ''
       In another case, the Supreme Court declined to review Judge 
     Keith's order to bus 8,700 of 23,000 students to desegregate 
     public schools in Pontiac, Mich. His 1971 order, one of the 
     first of its kind in the North, led to extensive busing, 
     attacks on school buses, death threats against the judge and 
     the convictions of Ku Klux Klansmen for dynamiting 10 school 
     buses.
       But five years after Pontiac's busing began, The New York 
     Times reported that bitter feelings that had all but 
     paralyzed the school district had faded, and that busing had 
     become a fact of life. ``Both blacks and whites are learning 
     to understand each other better, to fear and distrust each 
     other less, and to see individuals as individuals,'' the 
     report said.
       In 1973, a year before Nixon resigned in the Watergate 
     scandal, Judge Keith ordered the government to disclose 
     whether it had used sabotage, agents provocateurs and ``other 
     espionage activities,'' including a burglary at a law office, 
     to make its case against militants known as the Weathermen. 
     They were accused of plotting a campaign of bombing and 
     terrorism.
       Later, government lawyers appeared in Judge Keith's court 
     and withdrew their case against the Weathermen rather than 
     undergo a hearing on how their evidence had been obtained. 
     Defense lawyers said the Nixon administration had plotted its 
     own campaign of domestic intelligence-gathering operations, 
     including breaking and entering and wiretapping to foster a 
     ``malicious prosecution.''
       In 1979, Judge Keith and the Sixth Circuit upheld the 
     Detroit Police Department's affirmative action program. A 
     lieutenants and sergeants group had sued to overturn the 
     five-year-old program, saying that white officers had been 
     unjustly passed over for promotion. But Judge Keith wrote 
     that promotion tests had been slanted against blacks, and 
     that affirmative action ``undoes years of discrimination.''
       And in 2002, the Sixth Circuit Court held that the Bush 
     administration had violated the First Amendment freedoms of 
     speech and the press by conducting hundreds of secret 
     hearings to deport immigrants suspected of ties to terrorism. 
     Other courts issued contradictory rulings, and the secret 
     hearings went on for some time. But the case yielded one of 
     Judge Keith's more memorable opinions.
       ``Democracy dies behind closed doors,'' he wrote.
       Damon Jerome Keith was born in Detroit on July 4, 1922, the 
     youngest of six children of Perry and Annie (Williams) Keith, 
     who had migrated from Georgia. Mr. Keith worked at the Ford 
     Motor Company's River Rouge plant for $5 a day. Damon and his 
     siblings, Luther, Perry, Napoleon, Marie and Annie, grew up 
     in poverty. For a time during the Depression, the family 
     received welfare assistance.
       Mr. Keith graduated from Northwestern High School in 1939. 
     At West Virginia State College, he waited on tables and 
     cleaned a chapel and the college president's house to pay his 
     way. He earned a bachelor's degree in 1943. Drafted into the 
     wartime Army, he served in Europe in a black unit largely 
     assigned to kitchen duties. He was discharged as a sergeant 
     in 1946.
       He received his juris doctor in 1949 at the Howard 
     University Law School, where his mentors included Thurgood 
     Marshall, the future first black justice of the Supreme 
     Court, and William Hastie, the nation's first black federal 
     judge. Mr. Keith received a master of laws degree at Wayne 
     State University in 1956.
       In 1953, he married Rachel Boone, a prominent doctor in 
     Detroit. She died in 2007. Besides his daughter Debbie, 
     survivors include two other daughters, Cecile Keith Brown and 
     Gilda Keith, and two granddaughters.
       In 1964, Mr. Keith helped founded one of Detroit's first 
     African-American law firms and was named co-chairman of the 
     Michigan Civil Rights Commission. Three years later, he 
     became a federal judge. He was chief judge for Eastern 
     Michigan from 1975 to 1977, when he joined the Sixth Circuit 
     Court. In 1995, he assumed senior status on the appellate 
     court, with a reduced caseload.
       A lifelong Detroit resident, Mr. Keith received some 40 
     honorary doctorates and was showered with honors, including 
     the Spingarn Medal of the N.A.A.C.P. and the federal 
     judiciary's Edward J. Devitt Award.
       He was the subject of a 2016 Jesse Nesser documentary, 
     ``Walk with Me: The Trials of Damon J. Keith.'' One 
     highlight: When he was 69, one of the nation's most 
     distinguished jurists and national chairman of a 
     Williamsburg, Va., judicial conference on the Constitution's 
     Bicentennial, he stepped outside the hotel during a break--
     and was taken for a parking attendant.
       ``A white man drove up,'' he told a crowd screening the 
     film at Howard University, ``and said, `Boy, park my car.' ''

  Ms. PLASKETT. Mr. Speaker, in looking at those things that this 
Federal judge fought for while he was alive, I think it is a great 
segue into the other discussion that the Congressional Black Caucus has 
been engaged in in this hour, and that is poverty. Many of the 
communities that this judge was fighting for were poor communities.
  Unfortunately, at this day and age, it is still primarily people of 
color who disproportionately are affected by poverty. But the Trump 
administration is on the verge of making an end run around Congress 
now, attempting to slash the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 
by fiat.
  The latest effort was a proposed rule that would open for public 
comments until April 10. This rule would restrict SNAP eligibility by 
limiting States' flexibility to help the jobless or underemployed 
workers in struggling regions. By the administration's own estimate, 
enacting this rule would substantially increase hunger and hardship, 
stripping at least 755,000 Americans of food assistance, though other 
estimates suggest it could be as much as 1 million individuals and cut 
SNAP by $15 billion, slashing more than 178,000 jobs over the coming 
decade.
  In the last Congress, Republicans and Democrats had a long, 
protracted conference on the farm bill, much of it related to SNAP. 
Much of it was because of discussions about ensuring that there is a 
safety net for those who regularly without it would go hungry.
  We see that this administration did not want to take what Congress 
ruled on--what the President even signed--and is now, through his own 
executive order, attempting to change the law. The administration's 
most recent attempt to cut SNAP comes on the heels of President Donald 
Trump's failed attempt to achieve similar SNAP cuts in that farm bill; 
cuts that Congress rejected on a bipartisan basis.
  This proposed rule is not just cruel. It is also bad policy. Making 
people hungrier will not help them find work any faster. It will only 
kick underemployment and unemployment workers when they are down.
  Most working-age SNAP participants who are not receiving disability 
benefits are working, but they are often in unstable jobs with volatile 
schedules, low wages, making them especially likely to being affected 
by the rule.
  I want to talk about how this is going to affect rural communities. 
In 2010, the U.S. Census found that 22 percent of the population in the 
Virgin Islands lives in poverty. Fifty percent of those living under 
the poverty level were families led by single mothers. The 
Congressional Research Service discovered that on average, children 
living in female-headed families were more likely to live in poverty 
than children living in two-parent households.
  Given that 76 percent of rural adults report that good jobs are 
scarce in their area, it is not as if they are not looking. The jobs 
are simply not there. Rural communities like mine in the Virgin Islands 
will be among the hardest hit by the President's proposed rule, as it 
will tie States' hands and remove the flexibility they need to help 
residents of high unemployment areas put food on the table.
  Indeed, while the urban areas experienced a net gain of 3.6 million 
jobs from 2007 to 2015, rural areas lost 400,000 jobs during that same 
time, meaning that many rural areas have struggled to recover still 
from the Great Recession.
  Moreover, rural populations already face additional barriers to work. 
For example, lack of access to broadband is impeding the growth of 
rural economies, hampering total employment growth, and the opening of 
new businesses. Additionally, rural economies have less industrial 
diversity than urban areas and, in some communities, in particular, the 
departure of a central employer has led to tremendous job loss.

[[Page H4003]]

  In the Virgin Islands, one of the world's largest refineries based in 
the Virgin Islands on St. Croix shut down in 2012, driving a decrease 
in jobs. At the time of the shutdown, the unemployment skyrocketed to 
18 percent. In the same year, refined petroleum exports for the U.S. 
plummeted by 90 percent.
  Given these challenges, States need more flexibility, not less, in 
order to decide how best to protect and invest in rural areas, as the 
administration's economic policies have not decreased the widening 
urban and rural divide. I believe that my coanchor, as well, has 
examples how poverty is affecting Americans; not just African 
Americans.

                              {time}  2015

  The purpose of the Congressional Black Caucus Special Order hour is 
not solely to talk about African Americans but to really champion the 
issues of those Americans who do not often have a voice.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Horsford) to 
discuss this further.
  Mr. HORSFORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentlewoman from 
the Virgin Islands (Ms. Plaskett) for yielding.
  This is a very serious and important issue that we are talking about 
tonight. I really want to provide the context to what got us to this 
point where the Trump administration is now trying to balance the 
budget on the backs of working people: the poor, seniors, children, and 
needy families.
  The President and Republicans in Congress during the last Congress 
passed the so-called Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. What that Tax Cuts and Jobs 
Act actually did was add $1.5 trillion to our deficit. The tax cuts 
that were so-called were supposed to help the working poor. Eighty-
three percent of the benefit from those tax cuts went to 1 percent of 
the wealthiest, the well-connected, and the powerful. Now, to balance 
the budget, they are proposing these draconian measures--cuts and 
revisions--on our budget, and they are targeting the poor, those who 
are relying, as my colleague said, on important programs such as SNAP, 
Head Start funding, the Children's Health Insurance Program, the 
National School Lunch Program, and other anti-poverty programs.
  Let me talk to you for a moment, Mr. Speaker, about what these cuts 
mean to the people in my home State of Nevada. Nearly 434,000 Nevadans 
would be at risk of losing their SNAP benefits. SNAP benefits help 
families put food on the table and also help contribute to our local 
economy because they are buying those groceries at our local grocery 
stores. They are ensuring that we keep workers working at our local 
grocery stores.
  The proposed rule would impact Nevadans, by putting 633,000 Nevadans 
at risk of being kicked off of Medicaid. Since we have adopted the 
Affordable Care Act and Medicaid expansion in my home State of Nevada 
in 2008, we have cut the rate of uninsured in half. Prior to the 
Affordable Care Act and the Medicaid expansion, our uninsured rate 
among children was over 30 percent. Now it is below 14 percent and 
continuing to decline. This administration wants to take us backward. 
We won't go backward.
  Over 3,000 young toddlers in Nevada would be at risk of being removed 
from the Early Head Start and Head Start programs. That is 
unconscionable to me because the Acelero program that helps administer 
Head Start in my district already has a waiting list. There are already 
families who can't get into the program because there is not adequate 
funding based on this administration's lack of priorities around the 
poor.
  So while this rule may seem mundane to some, the impact on families 
is real. So we are bringing attention to this issue so the voters and 
constituents across the United States can have a voice in this process. 
The rule that the President is proposing to make has a 45-day window 
for the American public to comment on just how harmful this rule would 
be. The deadline to submit comments is June 21 of this year, and I 
would encourage all of the public to make sure that their voices are 
being heard.
  So just to underline again, the Trump administration has proposed a 
rule that would recalculate how we measure poverty, a move that would 
more than likely kick people off of certain Federal programs that are 
meant to assist poor and low-income families.
  So why would they do that?
  Because they have targeted the working poor in order to balance the 
budget to pay for the tax cuts that they gave to big corporations, the 
wealthy, and the well-connected.
  The administration is considering switching to a different inflation 
measure that rises more slowly, a change that over time would make it 
harder to qualify for assistance. It is already hard enough for many 
constituents in my district to receive aid.
  Mr. Speaker, I talked to you about the waiting list of families at 
Acelero Head Start program. It is right there on the corner of Martin 
Luther King and Carey in my district. I have talked to the parents at 
that program, and those families that are in it depend on the Head 
Start program in order to give their children a good head start and be 
able to prepare them for school. But without it, they would be left 
without adequate childcare and without adequate support for their 
families.
  The Children's Health Insurance Program is something that I had 
worked on when I was in the State senate. This is not a partisan issue. 
In fact, many of my colleagues on the other side have supported funding 
for the Children's Health Insurance Program, but the proposed Trump 
administration rule that would recalculate how we measure poverty would 
actually impact 633,000 Nevadans who would be kicked off of Medicaid 
and the Children's Health Insurance Program.
  So I would ask my colleagues on the other side why they would support 
the administration impacting their constituents in this way?
  It is not just the constituents in my district. It is not just the 
constituents in Delegate Plaskett's district. Every Member of this body 
has constituents who would be negatively impacted if this rule by the 
Trump administration is enacted.
  By allowing for these additional substitutions, chained CPI, which is 
the measurement by which the administration is looking to measure 
poverty, shows a slower rate of inflation. But for many families who 
are already choosing between paying the rent and buying food, they are 
already living as frugally as possible.
  Time and time again, the Trump administration has attacked programs 
that help struggling American families put food on the table and keep a 
roof over their heads. But they ran and passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs 
Act. They did it in 51 days without one hearing, and now there are all 
these unintended consequences from that measure that was passed in the 
previous Congress, and they want to come back here and balance the 
budget on the backs of the poor. We say, No.

  The Department of Education has said that more than 1 million 
schoolchildren were homeless in the 2016-2017 school year. One million 
schoolchildren in America are homeless, and this administration wants 
to deny them health insurance coverage under Medicaid and a school 
lunch during the school day?
  The Department of Agriculture said that 15 million households faced 
food insecurity in 2017, meaning that they experienced difficulty 
affording food, and this administration--the Trump administration--
wants to pass a rule that would recalculate how we measure poverty in 
order to deny more children and families receiving this care. Despite 
that, 70 percent of voters indicated that they had experienced at least 
one form of economic hardship last year--70 percent. But we can find 
ways to give tax cuts to big corporations, to the wealthy, and to the 
well-connected.
  The President's proposed rule would be harmful. It is misguided and 
unfair to so many Nevada families and families all across the country. 
Again, I would urge the public to write their Member of Congress and 
ask them what they are doing to protect the public on this issue. After 
the public has written their Member, they should submit their comment 
before the June 21 date to the administration so that we can rescind 
this proposed rule and protect working families and the poor.
  Ms. PLASKETT. Mr. Speaker, I have to tell the gentleman that his 
remarks

[[Page H4004]]

were very enlightening and thoughtful. The logic of this administration 
and what they are thinking just does not make sense. In the end, it is 
going to cost us more. As you said, how is denying 1 million children 
lunch benefiting us as a country?
  Mr. HORSFORD. I am at a loss for words how we choose to balance the 
budget on 1 million homeless children, but find a way to give tax cuts 
to the wealthy. We added $1.5 trillion to our Federal deficit, but now 
we have 1 million homeless children in last year's school year whom we 
are struggling to make sure they get adequate support in their schools 
and a nutritious meal. And this administration wants to deny them that 
by this rule change.
  Ms. PLASKETT. Mr. Speaker, if you want to be calculating about it, 
how is it helpful to us in the long run?
  If you don't want to do it out of Christian goodness, out of the 
depths of humanity, then think about the long-term ramifications. Think 
about what it does to us to have 1 million children not being fed 
properly, not being able to think in a classroom, to be able to 
function, and to be able to do their work.
  What will that do to us 10 years from now?
  How many dropouts will there be?
  How many young people will be unable to function, to be able to read 
and write, and to be able to find a job?
  That will cost us, I am sure, entirely more money.
  Mr. HORSFORD. We have to have a more balanced discussion in this 
body. I believe that we need to be competitive, and we need to make 
sure that we are doing things to help incentivize our private sector. 
There is a way to do that, but, unfortunately, our colleagues took the 
approach to ram this measure through in 51 days with not one hearing. 
They didn't discusses the impacts, and none of the issues that we are 
now bringing forward on how the working poor, the middle class, and 
those who are struggling and aspiring to be part of the middle class 
are being negatively impacted by these policies.
  So there is a direct correlation. We can't just talk about the budget 
or the cuts to the budget that this administration is making without 
talking about what this administration and Republicans in Congress did 
last Congress by adding $1.5 trillion to our Federal deficit. It is not 
just these Federal programs that we are talking about tonight. It is 
Medicare, it is Social Security, and it is the Affordable Care Act. I 
am sure we will have a Special Order on those topics as well, but we 
wanted to bring attention to this tonight, because we only have 45 days 
for the public to get their comments in to, hopefully, reverse this 
rule so that it won't go into effect.
  Ms. PLASKETT. In the last Congress, and again in this one, I am a 
member of the Agriculture Committee. I recall that when that farm bill 
initially was presented, the ranking member at that time and now the 
chair, Collin Peterson, and many of the Democrats were aghast that we 
weren't going to have hearings, that there wasn't going to be a markup, 
and that there wasn't going to be discussion on the farm bill which 
contains essential nutrition programs in there. It wasn't until it got 
to the Senate that we were able to have in conference a discussion 
about SNAP because the Republicans over here decided that that was not 
important. They didn't want to fund it, they didn't want to take care 
of children, and they didn't want to take care of families of those 
with disabilities and of veterans who rely on SNAP programs, on 
supplemental nutrition programs. It wasn't until we got to conference 
that that happened.
  The President signed the farm bill, and lo and behold, here comes the 
boomerang where he is trying to ram this through by executive order and 
by proposed rule changes to the law.
  People in this law it doesn't just affect, and if you are not 
interested in families that are single-parent families, female-run 
families, African American families, what about those veterans who are 
affected?
  What about those with disabilities?
  The proposed rule purports to apply only to able-bodied adults 
without dependents. But what people are unaware of is that under the 
rule, 11 million people with disabilities who receive SNAP assistance 
could lose that assistance under the rule as people who face limited 
work capacity due to disability or poor health are regularly 
misclassified as able-bodied for the purpose of SNAP.

                              {time}  2030

  That means those individuals between the ages of 18 and 59 who have 
at least one physical, functional, or working limitation and are not 
counted as disabled under SNAP may, in fact, be affected. So this is 
cutting across so many individuals.
  Mr. HORSFORD. Would the gentlewoman yield on that point?
  Ms. PLASKETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. 
Horsford).
  Mr. HORSFORD. There was a recent article that showed many of the 
workers of large employers who don't pay a livable wage are on SNAP 
benefits. These are people who are working, but because they are not 
being paid an adequate wage, they are eligible for SNAP benefits.
  On top of that, based on the rule change and the discussion the 
gentlewoman just outlined, 11 million could lose their benefits. These 
are people, some of whom are working but because employers aren't 
willing to pay them a living wage, they are on benefits, Federal 
benefits, being subsidized by the Federal Government.
  Either we need these employers to step up and give America a raise so 
they don't have to be on SNAP benefits or we need this administration 
to understand that balancing the budget on the working poor isn't the 
solution.
  Ms. PLASKETT. Mr. Speaker, when the gentleman talks about the working 
poor, I think about those individuals in the Virgin Islands where we 
have limited jobs. Many of these individuals have jobs in government.
  You have an individual who is the head of a house, a husband-and-wife 
house, making $20,000--three children, a wife--trying to make ends meet 
off that kind of salary. They qualify, as we now have it functioning, 
for assistance for their family--for Medicaid, in some instances. But 
this administration is trying to take that away.
  Are they going to take it away from those people who are doing what 
they say they are supposed to do? They are out there working as best 
they can. They are trying to take care of their families. This Congress 
has provided a safety net to them, and now we are going to strip that 
away.
  This is untenable, and this has to stop.
  Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of Mr. Horsford the timeframe that 
individuals have to send a letter to their Member of Congress, to send 
a letter to this administration to let them know what their thoughts 
are.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Horsford).
  Mr. HORSFORD. Mr. Speaker, the comment period for the American public 
for this proposed rule by the administration ends on June 21.
  The Trump administration floated this proposal through what is called 
a request for comment, essentially a request for the public to provide 
information and views to the Federal Government on this potential 
change. They are expecting them not to know that this is happening.
  This administration presented no research on how low-income families' 
costs for basic necessities has changed over time, nor did they provide 
information on the implications of changing the poverty line for 
individuals' and families' access to needed assistance.
  That is why tonight's Special Order was so important and timely, for 
us to bring awareness to this. I don't know how many Members of this 
body know that the administration is doing this.
  Again, I would ask my colleagues on the other side, who have 
constituents just like we do who will be impacted, whether they support 
this administration in this proposed rule change that will take away 
fundamental benefits from their constituents, just like it will ours.
  This is not a handout. This is a hand up. It is a hand up in order to 
help individuals bridge, if you will, while they are going through 
difficult times.
  Ms. PLASKETT. Mr. Speaker, I think people don't understand that SNAP 
benefits represent $1.40 per person, per meal--$1.40. I can't get a cup 
of coffee in Washington, D.C., with $1.40, but that is the benefit we 
are giving per person, per meal, for SNAP benefits.

[[Page H4005]]

  We should not be talking about cuts to SNAP. We should be talking 
about how to increase this benefit to the American people, to American 
children, to our elders, to veterans who are relying on this.
  Something must be done. As the Congressional Black Caucus, we are 
here to raise the alarm.
  Raising the Federal minimum wage would save, even if we raised it to 
$12 an hour, $53 billion over the next 10 years, nearly four times as 
much as the proposed rule, by ensuring that workers earn more so that 
they are better able to afford food, instead of punishing labor market 
struggles with hunger, as the gentleman said.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Horsford) for 
any additional thoughts he may have as we close out this Special Order 
hour, and I thank the American people for listening.
  Mr. HORSFORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record information from the Center on 
Budget and Policy Priorities titled ``Trump Administration Floating 
Changes to Poverty Measure That Would Reduce or Eliminate Assistance to 
Millions of Low-Income Americans.''

[From the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Tuesday, May 7, 2019]

  Trump Administration Floating Changes to Poverty Measure That Would 
  Reduce or Eliminate Assistance to Millions of Lower-Income Americans

   (Statement by Sharon Parrott, Senior Fellow and Senior Counselor)

       The Trump Administration yesterday floated a proposal to 
     use a lower measure of inflation when adjusting the poverty 
     line each year. Consistent with other policies the 
     Administration has pursued, this policy would over time cut 
     or take away entirely food assistance, health, and other 
     forms of basic assistance from millions of people who 
     struggle to put food on the table, keep a roof over their 
     heads, and see a doctor when they need to. The reductions in 
     assistance that this proposal would produce stand in stark 
     contrast to the Administration's 2017 tax law, which 
     conferred large new benefits on the highest-income 
     households.
       If the poverty line is altered in this fashion, fewer 
     individuals and families will qualify over time for various 
     forms of assistance, including many who work hard but are 
     paid low wages. That's because using a lower measure of 
     inflation like the chained CPI to adjust the poverty line 
     each year would make the eligibility thresholds for various 
     programs that serve people in need lower and lower over time, 
     compared with what the thresholds otherwise would be. This, 
     in turn, would lower the income eligibility limits for 
     programs like SNAP (formerly known as food stamps) and 
     Medicaid, which are tied to the federal poverty line. It also 
     would reduce the Affordable Care Act's (ACA) premium tax 
     credits--and thereby increase the out-of-pocket premium 
     charges faced by millions of people who purchase health 
     insurance through the ACA marketplaces.
       The notion that the nation does too much to help struggling 
     families stands in contrast to a broad set of data. For 
     example, even with our current poverty line and set of 
     supports, the Department of Education says that more 1 
     million school children were homeless in the 2016-2017 school 
     year, and the Department of Agriculture (USDA) says that 15 
     million households faced food insecurity in 2017, meaning 
     that they experienced difficulty affording food.
       This proposal is entirely discretionary on the part of the 
     Administration. No statute or regulation requires it to alter 
     the methodology for updating the poverty line. Rather, the 
     Administration is choosing to consider a policy that would 
     weaken basic assistance programs and thereby increase 
     hardship.
       The Administration is considering using a lower inflation 
     measure to adjust the poverty line while wholly ignoring 
     other questions about the adequacy of the poverty line as a 
     measure of whether households can meet basic needs. And, it 
     has failed to put forward evidence about whether the chained 
     CPI itself accurately captures changes in the cost of living 
     for low-income households.
       Indeed, the issue of what measure to use in adjusting the 
     poverty line for inflation is only one of a number of 
     questions about the poverty line and the official poverty 
     measure. Considerable research over the years--including a 
     major report by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS)--has 
     identified a number of ways in which the poverty line appears 
     to be inadequate. For example, the poverty line doesn't fully 
     include certain costs that many low-income families face like 
     child care. In accordance with the guidance of the NAS panel, 
     federal analysts worked carefully with researchers over a 
     number of years to develop the Supplemental Poverty Measure 
     (SPM), which more fully measures the cost of current basic 
     living expenses. With this more careful accounting, the SPM's 
     poverty line is higher than the official poverty line for 
     most types of households, and its poverty rate is slightly 
     higher than the official poverty rate.
       Another indication that the poverty line is too low is the 
     high rate of hardship among families with incomes just above 
     that marker. Near-poor families, using today's poverty line, 
     face high rates of food insecurity, difficulty paying rent 
     and utilities, and high rates of uninsurance.
       The Administration's announcement, however, ignores all 
     other issues regarding poverty measurement that the NAS and 
     other analysts have raised and cherry-picks just one issue--
     the measure used to adjust for inflation--to focus on in 
     isolation. Simply switching to a lower inflation measure 
     would likely make the poverty line less rather than more 
     accurate as a measure of what families need to get by.
       Moreover, it is not at all clear that the chained CPI is a 
     better measure of inflation for low-income households' basic 
     living expenses, even if we had a poverty measure that 
     measured those living expenses more adequately. Research on 
     different inflation measures generally focuses on the best 
     way to measure inflation for the economy and consumers 
     overall. But the consumption patterns of low-income 
     households--and their ability to change their consumption in 
     response to changes in prices--may be different from those of 
     typical consumers. A recent study indicates that inflation 
     tends to rise faster for low-income households than for the 
     population as a whole. As just one example, housing costs 
     comprise a significantly larger share of low-income 
     households' budgets, on average, than they do for middle- and 
     upper-income households. And Labor Department data show that 
     costs for rental housing, which low-income people rely on 
     disproportionately, have been rising faster than the overall 
     CPI.
       The Administration has floated this proposal through a 
     ``Request for Comment''--essentially a request for the public 
     to provide information and views to the federal government on 
     this potential change. But the Administration presented no 
     research on how low-income families' costs for basic 
     necessities has changed over time, the adequacy of the 
     poverty line itself as compared to the cost of basic 
     necessities, or the implications of changing the poverty line 
     for individuals' and families' access to needed assistance. 
     Asking for public comment in apparent preparation for a 
     policy change that could harm millions of struggling 
     Americans over time, without providing the public with 
     research and data on these basic questions, suggests this is 
     not a serious effort to explore the important substantive 
     issues that poverty measurement presents.
       The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is a nonprofit, 
     nonpartisan research organization and policy institute that 
     conducts research and analysis on a range of government 
     policies and programs. It is supported primarily by 
     foundation grants.

  Mr. HORSFORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the co-anchor for 
this hour. This has been a very enlightening topic for us to bring 
attention to.
  Each one of us has constituents who are impacted, to whom we speak on 
a regular basis. We cannot allow this administration to make this type 
of an executive order and not have the consequences explained to the 
American people.
  That is what tonight was all about.
  Sometimes the other side questioned President Obama making executive 
orders. Well, this executive order that President Trump is proposing 
directly impacts the working poor in this country. We cannot allow that 
to happen.
  We cannot allow children who are homeless, families who are 
struggling, and the working poor who are trying to do everything they 
can to keep it together to be impacted by this misguided, reckless, and 
totally unnecessary rule change being proposed by the Trump 
administration.
  Again, we urge the American public to have their voice heard and 
submit their comments by June 21 or contact their Member of Congress.
  We are fighting on their behalf, but we need to make sure that every 
Member in this body understands the implications of this proposed rule 
change.
  Ms. PLASKETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________