Marcia Fudge (I)
DWon the General, 2020 Ohio U.S. House District 11
Won the General, 2016 Ohio U.S. House District 11
Won the General, 2012 Ohio U.S. House District 11
U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (2021 - Present)
Ohio U.S. House, District 11 (2008 - Present)
To be claimed
Chair, Congressional Black Caucus, 2012-present
Member, Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, present
Member, Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues, present
Member, Congressional Diabetes Caucus, present
Member, Congressional Military Family Caucus, present
Member, Congressional Rock and Roll Caucus, present
Former Member, Agriculture Committee, United States House of Representatives
Former Member, Committee on House Administration, United States House of Representatives
Member, Congressional Progressive Caucus, present
Former Member, Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education Subcommittee, United States House of Representatives
Former Member, Education and the Workforce Committee, United States House of Representatives
Former Member, Education & Labor Committee, United States House of Representatives
Former Member, Subcommittee on Biotechnology, Horticulture, and Research, United States House of Representatives
Former Member, Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Human Services, United States House of Representatives
Former Member, Subcommittee on Conservation and Forestry, United States House of Representatives
Former Member, Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions, United States House of Representatives
Former Chair, Subcommittee on Nutrition, Oversight and Department Operations, United States House of Representatives
Former Member, Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, United States House of Representatives
Chair, Congressional Black Caucus, 2012-present
Member, Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, present
Member, Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues, present
Member, Congressional Diabetes Caucus, present
Member, Congressional Military Family Caucus, present
Member, Congressional Rock and Roll Caucus, present
Member, Congressional Progressive Caucus, present
Former Member, Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education Subcommittee, United States House of Representatives
Former Member, Education and the Workforce Committee, United States House of Representatives
Former Member, Subcommittee on Biotechnology, Horticulture, and Research, United States House of Representatives
Former Member, Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, United States House of Representatives
Member, Agriculture
Member, Education & Labor
Member, House Administration
Member, Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Human Services
Member, Subcommittee on Conservation and Forestry
Member, Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions
Chair, Subcommittee on Nutrition, Oversight and Department Operations
— Awards:
1. Do you generally support pro-choice or pro-life legislation?
- Pro-choice
2. Other or expanded principles
- No Answer
1. In order to balance the budget, do you support an income tax increase on any tax bracket?
- Yes
2. In order to balance the budget, do you support reducing defense spending?
- Yes
3. Other or expanded principles
- No Answer
1. Do you support the regulation of indirect campaign contributions from corporations and unions?
- Yes
2. Other or expanded principles
- I believe in regulation of indirect campaign contributions from corporations and unions to the extent that such contributions must be disclosed as are all other campaign contributions.
1. Do you support federal spending as a means of promoting economic growth?
- Yes
2. Do you support lowering corporate taxes as a means of promoting economic growth?
- Yes
3. Other or expanded principles
- I supported some reduction of corporate taxes, but believe that they are now too low since the December 2017 tax legislation.
1. Do you support requiring states to adopt federal education standards?
- Yes
2. Other or expanded principles
- I believe that the state you live in should not determine the quality of your education.
1. Do you support government funding for the development of renewable energy (e.g. solar, wind, thermal)?
- Yes
2. Do you support the federal regulation of greenhouse gas emissions?
- Yes
3. Other or expanded principles
- No Answer
1. Do you generally support gun-control legislation?
- Yes
2. Other or expanded principles
- No Answer
1. Do you support repealing the 2010 Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare")?
- No
2. Other or expanded principles
- No Answer
1. Do you support the construction of a wall along the Mexican border?
- No
2. Do you support requiring immigrants who are unlawfully present to return to their country of origin before they are eligible for citizenship?
- No
3. Other or expanded principles
- No Answer
1. Do you support the legalization of marijuana for recreational purposes?
- No
2. Other or expanded principles
- Although I do not support the legalization of marijuana for recreational purposes, I do believe in the decriminalization of marijuana.
1. Should the United States use military force in order to prevent governments hostile to the U.S. from possessing a nuclear weapon?
- No
2. Do you support increased American intervention in Middle Eastern conflicts beyond air support?
- No
3. Other or expanded principles
- No Answer
Please explain in a total of 100 words or less, your top two or three priorities if elected. If they require additional funding for implementation, please explain how you would obtain this funding.
- My top three priorities are education, health and wellness, and economic development and opportunities.
Funding levels for education, including early childhood programs and retooling of adults for 21st century jobs, and health and wellness should be slightly increased. Savings realized from reallocation of funds by decreasing levels of other spending categories should be more than adequate to meet the increases. Public/Private partnerships also help reduce the need for public funding.
Investment in infrastructure and economic development would create jobs, and increase commerce, the viability of communities and their tax bases to realize short, mid and long term return on investments.
Latest Action: House - 06/19/2019 Referred to the House Committee on Education and Labor.
Tracker:Latest Action: House - 06/19/2019 Referred to the House Committee on Education and Labor.
Tracker:Latest Action: House - 06/19/2019 Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Reform.
Tracker:By Marcia Fudge and Jim McGovern A new Trump administration rule that will kick over 700,000 people off the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) -- America's premier anti-hunger program -- is set to take effect in April. This rule will literally take food off the tables of American families who are already struggling to get by. This administration claims that this is all about getting people back to work. But as members of Congress who collectively represent more than a decade of chairmanship on the House Agriculture Committee's subcommittee that oversees federal anti-hunger programs, we see clearly through this lie. And we believe this is nothing but another cynical and partisan attempt to gut benefits for those who have fallen on hard times. This president may not know what life is like for people struggling to get by, but we do. We represent tight-knit communities in Northeast Ohio and Central and Western Massachusetts. Our districts include Democrats, Republicans, and everyone in between. Regardless of their party affiliation, our constituents believe in a hard-day's work -- and in helping those who fall on hard times. They've seen how hard it can be sometimes to put food on the table, often through no fault of their own. And they've experienced how easy it can be to fall off track when unexpected bills or an illness throw budgets off balance. That is why programs like SNAP exist. Its benefits are modest, averaging about $1.40 per person, per meal. But it is a program that has kept millions of people out of food insecurity, and it continues to be one of the most efficient and effective parts of our federal safety net. The administration's attempt to reduce SNAP would be devastating, but the House of Representatives is taking action to fight back. This week, we're proud to stand alongside our colleagues in filing an amicus curiae, or friend of the court, brief which introduces information from outside experts to aid the court in its decision making process. Our filing raises four distinct objections: First, the rule would strip at least 700,000 hungry, low-income Americans of their SNAP benefits when it takes effect on April 1. While many experts view this number as merely a floor for the possible total number of recipients kicked off the program as a result of the policy change, the administration is nevertheless trumpeting this systematic eviction as a great accomplishment. Second, for a White House that has criticized past administrations for their perceived regulatory overreach, this iteration of USDA is merely using the same tactics to fit its own political deliverables. It is also attempting to accomplish the far-right policy goals that a bipartisan Congress categorically rejected in the 2018 farm bill. The administration and its ultra-conservative henchmen in Congress cannot stomach that 369 representatives rejected their partisan assault on the poor. Third, the Republicans, who have long labeled themselves the party of federalism and states' rights, are completely exposed as hypocrites by championing a rule that eliminates the rights of states -- red and blue alike -- to determine what their own citizens need and serve them accordingly. Finally, the administration's rule actively harms the very people USDA has committed to protect. The rule intentionally reduces the ability of SNAP to accomplish its mission. The administration uses the callous term "self-selection," suggesting that individuals who can't meet the new requirements for work or training have decided to do so on their own accord. This is a gutless abdication of responsibility, and a two-faced abandonment of its stated motto to "do right and feed everyone." SNAP works. It prevents food insecurity, stabilizes families, boosts public health, lifts people out of poverty, helps our veterans when their transition back to civilian life hits a rough patch, and provides pathways of opportunity for those struggling to get ahead. But instead of looking for ways to end hunger, this administration is doing an end-run around Congress to make hunger worse. We think that is just plain wrong. The stock market may be up, but most Americans haven't seen a raise in years and are struggling just to break even. Jobs in rural areas are as hard to come by as they are in forgotten blue-collar sections of the Rust Belt. And far too many people are working two, three, and four jobs just to make ends meet. As the president and congressional Republicans continue to shower tax breaks and giveaways on the rich and powerful, we will not stop defending vulnerable Americans and speaking out for the needs of all people in our communities. Congresswoman Marcia L. Fudge represents the 11th District of Ohio and serves as chair of the House Agriculture Subcommittee on Nutrition, Oversight, and Department Operations. Congressman Jim McGovern represents the 2nd District of Massachusetts and serves as chair of the House Rules Committee. He formerly served as ranking member of the House Agriculture Subcommittee on Nutrition.