    [Senate Hearing 115-598]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 115-598

                              NUTRITION PROGRAMS:
                      PERSPECTIVES FOR THE 2018 FARM BILL

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                           COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,
                            NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                               SEPTEMBER 14, 2017

                                   __________

                           Printed for the use of the
               Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

                   [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

           Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov/

                                     __________

                          U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    30-986 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2019

               COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

                         PAT ROBERTS, Kansas, Chairman

    THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi            DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan
    MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky            PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
    JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas               SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
    JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota            AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
    JONI ERNST, Iowa                     MICHAEL BENNET, Colorado
    CHARLES GRASSLEY, Iowa               KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York
    JOHN THUNE, South Dakota             JOE DONNELLY, Indiana
    STEVE DAINES, Montana                HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota
    DAVID PERDUE, Georgia                ROBERT P. CASEY, Jr., Pennsylvania
    LUTHER STRANGE, Alabama              CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

                 James A. Glueck, Jr., Majority Staff Director

                    DaNita M. Murray, Majority Chief Counsel

                        Jessica L. Williams, Chief Clerk

                   Joseph A. Shultz, Minority Staff Director

                   Mary Beth Schultz, Minority Chief Counsel

                                      (ii)

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Hearing(s):

    Nutrition Programs: Perspectives for the 2018 Farm Bill..........     1

                                  ----------

                          Thursday, September 14, 2017
                        STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY SENATORS

    Roberts, Hon. Pat, U.S. Senator from the State of Kansas,
      Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry....     1
    Stabenow, Hon. Debbie, U.S. Senator from the State of Michigan...     3

                                    Panel I

    Lipps, Brandon, Acting Deputy Under Secretary, Administrator,
      Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services, Food and Nutrition
      Service, US Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC..........     5
    Harden, Gil, Assistant Inspector General for Audit, Office of
      Inspector General, US Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC     7
    Coffey, Ann M., Assistant Inspector General for Investigations,
      Office of Inspector General, US Department of Agriculture,
      Washington, DC.................................................     7

                                    Panel II

    Schaeffer, Sam, Chief Executive Officer and Executive Director,
      Center for Employment Opportunities, New York, NY..............    26
    Parker, Bryan, Community Food Bank of Eastern Oklahoma, Tulsa, OK    27
    Wright, Jimmy, President, Wright's Markets, Inc., Opelika, AL Dr.
      Diane Schanzenbach, Director and Margaret Walker Alexander
      Professor, Institute for Policy Research, Northwestern
      University, Evanston, IL.......................................    29
    Diane Schanzenbach, Director and Margaret Walker Alexander
      Professor, Institute for Policy Research, Northwestern
      University, Evanston, IL.......................................    31
    Riendeau, Brian, Executive Director, Dare to Care Food Bank,
      Louisville, KY.................................................    33
                                  ----------

                                    APPENDIX

    Prepared Statements:
        Harden, Gil..................................................    50
        Lipps, Brandon...............................................    56
        Parker, Bryan................................................    60
        Riendeau, Brian..............................................    62
        Schaeffer, Sam...............................................    67
        Schanzenbach, Diane..........................................    83
        Wright, Jimmy................................................    93
    Question and Answer:
    Harden, Gil:
        Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow......   102
        Written response to questions from Hon. Amy Klobuchar........   103
    Lipps, Brandon:
        Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow......   104
        Written response to questions from Hon. Patrick J. Leahy.....   106
        Written response to questions from Hon. John Hoeven..........   108
        Written response to questions from Hon. Michael Bennet.......   108
    Riendeau, Brian:
        Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow......   110
        Written response to questions from Hon. Patrick J. Leahy.....   111
        Written response to questions from Hon. Sherrod Brown........   112
    Schaeffer, Sam:
        Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow......   114
    Schanzenbach, Diane:
        Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts..........   118
        Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow......   118
        Written response to questions from Hon. Patrick J. Leahy.....   120
        Written response to questions from Hon. Sherrod Brown........   121
        Written response to questions from Hon. Michael Bennet.......   122
        Written response to questions from Hon. Robert Casey, Jr.....   122
    Wright, Jimmy:
        Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow......   124
        Written response to questions from Hon. Patrick J. Leahy.....   125
        Written response to questions from Hon. Sherrod Brown........   126

                              NUTRITION PROGRAMS:

                      PERSPECTIVES FOR THE 2018 FARM BILL

                                  ----------

                          Thursday, September 14, 2017

                                  United States Senate,
             Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry,
                                                         Washington, DC
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:33 a.m., in
    Room 216, Hart Senate Office Building, Hon. Pat Roberts,
    Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
        Present: Roberts, Boozman, Ernst, Grassley, Thune, Daines,
    Perdue, Strange, Stabenow, Brown, Klobuchar, Bennet,
    Gillibrand, Donnelly, Heitkamp, Casey, and Van Hollen.

     STATEMENT OF HON. PAT ROBERTS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
    KANSAS, CHAIRMAN, U.S. COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND
                                FORESTRY

        Chairman Roberts. Good morning. I call this meeting of the
    Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry to
    order.
        Over the last several months, I along with our Ranking
    Member Stabenow and our colleagues on this Committee have been
    working on a new Farm Bill. An important part of this process
    has been to hold hearings on each Farm Bill title and to listen
    to stakeholders.
        I am proud to say that the Committee has efficiently
    conducted our work in this area, having held hearings so far on
    eight titles. Today's hearing covers the nutrition programs in
    Title IV of the Farm Bill. Two titles remain.
        The reauthorization process affords us the opportunity to
    review the full range of USDA programs to ensure that they are
    operating efficiently and effectively. Not every program needs
    a major overhaul, but many Federal programs can benefit from
    increased efficiency, improved integrity, and the reduction of
    waste.
        As we conduct this review, it is important to remember the
    purpose of these critical nutrition programs. They are not
    about long-term dependency; they are about giving aid in times
    of trouble. They are about ensuring our nation's security,
    helping folks become productive members of our economy, and
    about assisting the vulnerable among us who cannot help
    themselves.
        Part of a thorough review includes verifying that the
    programs are being administered and implemented properly at the
    Federal and State levels.
        Now, unfortunately, we have learned of some significant
    issues regarding the administration and oversight of the
    Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or what we call
    SNAP.
        Investigations by the Department of Agriculture's Food and
    Nutrition Service, the Department's Office of Inspector
    General, and the Department of Justice have revealed that
    States have purposely used, quote, ``whatever means
    necessary,'' unquote, to mislead the Federal Government to
    obtain bonuses or avoid financial penalties.
        Witnesses here today will provide details, but what we have
    discovered is that the integrity of the SNAP program cannot be
    verified. In all but a few States, the process used to measure
    errors has failed. Thus, the level of erroneous payments States
    have made when administering this program is completely
    unknown.
        Simply put, no one knows the error rate of SNAP, and that
    is unacceptable. The Federal Government does not even know the
    basic elements of the problem, such as how long this has been
    occurring.
        This program accounts for over 75 percent of Farm Bill
    spending. If we are unable to verify that this program is
    making every dollar count and ensure that the right amount of
    assistance is going to those who really need it, then something
    needs to change. With the help of the distinguished Ranking
    Member, something will change.
        We are not talking about rampant fraud here. We are not
    talking about rampant program abuse. We are talking about
    States cheating and gaming the system, resulting in an
    inability to even measure how many taxpayer dollars are being
    spent in error. This is not fair to taxpayers. It is certainly
    not fair to those who depend on this program, and it is not
    right.
        It is our duty to ensure that the integrity of this
    program, which is vital to those among us in need, is able to
    be measured and verified.
        Once that is accomplished, we must also ensure that this
    program is truly serving those in need, helping them to achieve
    self-sustainability, and not hindering their ability to
    succeed.
        Now, much has been made of the, quote, ``work requirements,
    but it is our job to be deliberative and informed when
    considering how we truly achieve the goal of enabling those who
    are receiving public assistance to attain self-sufficiency.
        Now, the last Farm Bill included a significant investment
    in work pilots to test effective methods of ensuring the long-
    term success of folks in need of assistance. We will need to
    build on that investment and continue to test proven methods of
    success.
        As we undertake this process, with the goals of program
    integrity and truly helping people to become self-sustaining,
    we will need the support and flexibility of all program
    stakeholders.
        Lines in the sand and uncompromising positions will benefit
    nobody and especially not the vulnerable populations these
    programs serve. Working together, I am confident we can find a
    way to ensure the integrity of SNAP and the critical need that
    the program meets.
        With that, it is my pleasure to recognize Senator Stabenow
    for any remarks she may have, but before yielding, I would like
    to take a moment to express appreciation to the Department's
    Food and Nutrition Services and other agencies for their work
    in providing assistance to those affected by the recent
    tragedies with regards to the hurricanes that we have
    experienced in this country,
        I understand that Department's staff have worked around the
    clock to provide services and ensure that program participants
    and others have access to assistance in this time of need. I
    have received reports lauding the Department's preparation and
    response, and I would like to thank Secretary Perdue and his
    staff and for everybody involved for their dedication and hard
    work.
        It will take this same spirit of working together for us to
    remedy these and other issues that need to be addressed to pass
    a Farm Bill.
        Senator Stabenow, I yield to you for any comments you may
    make.

    STATEMENT OF HON. DEBBIE STABENOW, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE
                              OF MICHIGAN

        Senator Stabenow. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and it
    continues to be a great pleasure to work with you. I want to
    start out with echoing the comments that you just made abouthe
    heartbreaking devastation that Hurricanes Harvey and Irma have
    caused in the South. These destructive storms underscore the
    critical need for disaster assistance for both our farmers and
    our families.
        I want to commend Secretary Perdue for his quick action to
    administer food assistance and provide flexibility for those in
    the path of these storms so that having enough to eat is the
    least of their worries.
        Our families deserve a reliable safety net in times of
    need. Whether it is making Disaster SNAP available during a
    hurricane or ensuring that a veteran can weather the storm of
    job loss during a recession, nutrition assistance programs are
    vital to rebuilding after disaster strikes.
        The Great Recession hit our country like a force of nature,
    causing too many Americans to lose their homes and jobs. For
    those who face unexpected unemployment, or underemployment, the
    Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program is a short-term
    lifeline to keep food on the table while they look for a
    stable, long-term job that allows them to fully support their
    families.
        This is a point worth repeating: SNAP supports families. It
    is about America saying, ``We've got your back when there is an
    emergency.''
        Nearly half of SNAP recipients are children, as we know.
    The vast majority of SNAP recipients are children, seniors,
    people with disabilities, or parents and caregivers that live
    in these households.
        Approximately 1.5 million veterans receive SNAP at some
    point during the year, and many of these heroes are considered
    able-bodied, despite lasting challenges from their times of
    service.
        Even current military families face food hardship. Many
    utilize SNAP and visit food banks that are often stretched too
    thin to meet community needs.
        It is important that we keep these real people in mind,
    like Mr. Parker who is here today to share his story about the
    impact of SNAP in his life, and that is an important story. It
    is important to to reflect on other stories as well as we
    consider changes to nutrition assistance in the Farm Bill.
        As a Committee, we can make improvements to SNAP. We need
    to. We need to make improvements in every single area, and hold
    every single program in the Farm Bill accountable, as we should
    for every area of the Federal government. I will continue to be
    very focused on making sure that we are doing that while still
    preserving critical food access.
        As we know, we have a farm safety net and a family safety
    net. We need to make sure there is accountability in both and
    support for both. As prices go down in farm country while jobs
    have gone up for families, it is really important to note that
    we will see significant savings over the next 10 years in SNAP
    because things are working as they should, people are going
    back to work and needing less assistance with their food.
        In 2014, we made common-sense reforms to further strengthen
    the integrity of nutrition assistance. While nutrition programs
    have historically had an extremely low rate of error and fraud,
    we addressed rare cases of misuse while protecting benefits and
    eligibility for SNAP participants that needed access to the
    family safety net.
        We also included Employment and Training Pilots to allow
    States to test innovative strategies to help SNAP participants
    find stable, long-term employment.
        As we will hear today, these pilots, along with the broader
    SNAP Employment and Training Program, create important
    community partnerships to connect people to jobs and training
    that works.
        Rather than focusing on arbitrary cuts to push people off
    of needed food assistance, we should focus, as we have in the
    past, on the types of voluntary partnerships that help families
    succeed.
        As I indicated before, the good news is this is already
    happening. As the economy has improved and people are getting
    back to work, we certainly want the economy to move faster, so
    everyone has the opportunity for a good-paying job. But we are
    seeing savings in the nutrition programs. They are working as
    intended.
        The Congressional Budget Office recently estimated that the
    Farm Bill is projected to save $80 billion more than initially
    expected, largely driven by reduced spending on food
    assistance.
        Looking ahead to the next Farm Bill, we will also continue
    to look for ways that we can strengthen health outcomes in SNAP
    through efforts like SNAP Nutrition Education and the very
    successful Food Nutrition Incentive Program that has often been
    called Double-Up Bucks.
        We will also ensure that oversight of SNAP at the State and
    Federal level is working as it should.
        I look forward to hearing from the USDA and the Inspector
    General's office today on the steps that are already being
    taken to ensure accuracy and timeliness in SNAP.
        I also want to learn more about the ways we can support the
    work the Food and Nutrition Service is doing to strengthen the
    quality control program.
        Mr. Chairman, as always, I look forward to working with you
    as we move forward to put together a great Farm Bill and
    continue to fine-tune these programs while also protecting food
    access for millions of families.
        Thank you.
        Chairman Roberts. I thank the Senator.
        I welcome the first panel of witnesses before the Committee
    this morning.
        Mr. Brandon Lipps, Acting Deputy Under Secretary,
    Administrator, Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services within
    the Department. Mr. Lipps currently serves as the Administrator
    of the Food and Nutrition Service, as well as the Acting Deputy
    Under Secretary of Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services at
    the Department. As the FNS Administrator, he oversees 15
    nutrition assistance programs at the Department, including the
    Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
        Prior to his time at the USDA, Mr. Lipps served as Chief of
    Staff in the Office of Chancellor Robert Duncan at Texas Tech
    University-home of the ever-passing, unsuccessful Red Raiders--
    and led nutrition policy for the House Agriculture Committee
    during the 2014 Farm Bill.
        Welcome to you, sir, and I look forward to your testimony.
        Mr. Harden, Mr. Gil Harden, Assistant Inspector General for
    Audit with the Office of Inspector General. Mr. Harden is the
    Assistant Inspector General for the Audit at the Department of
    the Office of Inspector General. He currently manages all
    audits of the Department and previously has served in a variety
    of roles in audit work at the OIG headquarters. Mr. Harden
    began his career as an auditor with the Western Regional
    Office, and he also oversaw Performance and Financial Audits
    for the Northwest Region.
        Welcome, sir, and I look forward to hearing from your
    perspective.
        Lastly, we have Ms. Ann M. Coffey, Assistant Inspector
    General for Investigations at the Office of Inspector General.
    Accompanying, Mr. Harden to respond to questions is Ann Coffey,
    who also joins us from the Department of Agriculture Office of
    Inspector General. She has served as the Assistant Inspector
    General for Investigations ever since 2015. She began her
    career at the Office of Inspector General, subsequently worked
    as a special agent with the OIG and then went over to the
    Department of Homeland Security. Following her return to the
    Office of Inspector General in 2005, Ms. Coffey led the Special
    Operations Division and then the Investigations Liaison and
    Hotline Division.
        Welcome to you, ma'am, and I look forward to your
    testimony.
        Mr. Lipps.

      STATEMENT OF BRANDON LIPPS, ACTING DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY,
    ADMINISTRATOR, FOOD, NUTRITION, AND CONSUMER SERVICES, FOOD AND
    NUTRITION SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON,
                                   DC

        Mr. Lipps. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
    Stabenow, and members of the Committee.
        Let me start by thanking you for the recognition of
    Secretary Perdue's leadership in this disaster and the hard
    work of our staff, certainly at FNS, but Department-wide, as we
    work to protect agricultural infrastructure and make sure that
    all Americans are fed during this time. The staff really has
    worked overtime to ensure that everybody gets fed, and we
    appreciate that.
        I am honored to be here today to talk about the
    Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Quality Control
    system. As you stated, I am the Acting Deputy Under Secretary
    and Administrator for the Food and Nutrition Service. I look
    forward to working with this Committee to ensure those most in
    need have access to food by administering FNS programs
    efficiently, effectively, and with the utmost integrity.
        Working in partnership with State agencies, FNS programs
    leverage our Nation's agricultural abundance to ensure that no
    American goes hungry.
        You have invited me here today to talk about SNAP quality
    control, or as we often refer to it, QC. SNAP's QC system
    measures improper payments, often referred to as the payment
    error rate. This rate is a combination of payments that are too
    high and those that are too low. It is a measure of errors in
    issuing benefits, not the misuse of benefits.
        Quality control is a two-tiered system of shared
    responsibility between the States and FNS. States review cases
    for errors, and FNS reviews a sample of those to ensure that
    States have, in fact, made the correct determination.
        Typically, USDA releases a national error rate for SNAP on
    an annual basis. However, USDA and the Office of Inspector
    General both found bias in the QC data which prevented us from
    releasing a national error rate for fiscal years 2015 and 2016.
        FNS noted that rate reductions appeared to happen too
    quickly, like dropping off a cliff, making us question the
    integrity of the QC system. That led SNAP to create four
    different statistical errors to comb the data for bias. When
    FNS found that all eight States we looked at showed problems in
    all four categories, they quickly moved to an in-depth review
    of all 53 State agencies' QC data.
        The results surprised and greatly concerned our experts.
    Some States had made inadvertent process errors, but more
    often, States were hiding errors from Federal reviewers. In
    doing so, they bypassed our data controls, preventing SNAP from
    catching the bias until the new indicators were developed.
        Based on our findings and those from our colleagues at OIG,
    FNS began implementing corrective actions with these 42 States
    to eliminate the bias at the State level in late 2014. FNS has
    also made our own policies, guidance, and review processes more
    robust. We issued memos and guidance to States, revised our
    quality control handbook, provided additional training to
    Federal and State staff, developed a new management evaluation
    guide to strengthen our oversight, and made new data services
    available to validate State findings.
        Let me be clear, FNS owns our role in these problems and is
    taking strong action to solve them, but the most egregious
    problems we saw do not result from unclear guidance. For
    example, we learned that in some states, error reduction
    committees, which are intended to identify errors and prevent
    them going forward, were instead hiding the errors they found
    from FNS.
        The changes FNS has made to our QC system will make those
    behaviors less likely, but fully eliminating the bias will
    require a commitment of good faith on all sides.
        FNS has not released a national error rate since fiscal
    year 2014 because the data was unreliable. I fully expect to
    release an error rate for fiscal year 2017, in June of 2018,
    when these reforms and training efforts are fully reflected in
    the data.
        FNS is committed to continually improving the QC system and
    the integrity of SNAP as a whole. We will hold ourselves
    accountable and our State partners accountable.
        We look forward to working with you on additional solutions
    to prevent this problem in the future.
        Thank you, and I am happy to answer any questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Lipps can be found on page
    56 in the appendix.]
        Chairman Roberts. Mr. Harden.

    STATEMENT OF GIL HARDEN, ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR AUDIT,
     OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
                            WASHINGTON, DC;

    ACCOMPANIED BY ANN M. COFFEY, ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL OF
                INVESTIGATIONS, OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S.
                DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, DC
        Mr. Harden. Good morning, Chairman Roberts, Ranking Member
    Stabenow, and members of the Committee. Thank you for the
    opportunity to testify about OIG's efforts to help FNS ensure
    the integrity of the SNAP program.
        With me today is Ann Coffey, the Assistant IG for
    Investigations.
        My statement today will focus on our audit of SNAP's QC
    process as well a related investigation.
        Through our audits and investigations, OIG helps FNS
    improve its general oversight of SNAP. Over the past 3 years,
    we have published six audit reports that resulted in 77
    recommendations and $299 million in monetary findings. Our
    SNAP-related investigations over the same period have led to
    over 2,300 arrests, 1,600 indictments, 1,500 convictions, as
    well as $296 million in monetary results.
        In 2013, OIG initiated an audit of SNAP's QC process.
    Though we recognize the improper payment rate for SNAP had been
    steadily declining, SNAP benefits had nearly doubled due to
    increased participation. Even at a low error rate, improper
    payments for SNAP still averaged over $2 billion annually.
        We found that confidence cannot be placed in FNS's reported
    error rate. For example, in all eight States we visited,
    private consultants and/or State error review committees used
    methods to mitigate case errors found during the QC process
    rather than report the cases as errors.
        A number of States hired third-party consultants who
    actively worked to eliminate errors and, therefore, improve the
    State's error rate. These States saw dramatic, if unwarranted,
    improvements in their error rates--from 21 to 85 percent,
    depending on the State.
        We also found other issues with how error rates were
    calculated. For example, State QC reviewers did not correctly
    identify and calculate payment errors during their review of
    SNAP cases. As a result, errors were improperly excluded from
    the SNAP error rate.
        Also, FNS did not adequately review State QC results. State
    QC results in 27 of the 60 cases we reviewed were unsupported,
    questionable, or inaccurate. As a result, FNS lacked the
    assurance needed to validate the accuracy of States' reported
    error rates, which serve as the primary basis for determining
    the SNAP national error rate.
        In total, we made 19 recommendations to help FNS improve
    the QC process. As of August 2017, FNS had closed 14 of these
    recommendations.
        One unique OIG investigation has highlighted significant
    problems with the QC process. Our investigators received a
    whistleblower complaint related to the activities of a third-
    party consultant working in one State. So far, this
    investigation has resulted in two States, Virginia and
    Wisconsin, agreeing to pay over $14 million to resolve
    allegations about both States' administration of SNAP.
        Both States admitted that they used consultants to review
    the error cases identified by their workers. The consultant
    advised the use of several improper and biased QC practices,
    including finding a basis for dropping error cases from the
    review, selectively applying requirements and policies to
    overturn and reduce errors, and asking beneficiaries leading
    questions to obtain desired answers to eliminate error
    potential. These practices improperly decreased the States'
    reported error rate, and as a result, States were paid
    performance bonuses for which they were not entitled. This
    investigation is ongoing.
        I want to thank the Committee again for the opportunity to
    testify, and I am open to--welcome to any questions you may
    have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Harden can be found on page
    50 in the appendix.]
        Chairman Roberts. Thank you very much.
        Let me note that we appreciate the statements of Mr. Lipps
    and Mr. Harden, and Ms. Coffey is here for questions only.
        Thank you to Panel 1 for taking the time to join us today.
    I appreciate it, but what I have heard is extremely disturbing.
        The integrity of the largest food assistance program that
    spends over $70 billion a year is simply unknown.
        The OIG has found that the quality control process is
    broken and in need of reform, and not only that, but we have a
    number of States that have defrauded the Federal Government and
    are being investigated by the Department of Justice.
        Mr. Lipps, you stated that the 2014 error rate data raised
    questions at FNS. Once the agency completed its in-depth
    review, did you discover any indication of when bias entered a
    State's quality control process? Do you have a sense at what
    point the State error rates became inaccurate?
        Mr. Lipps. Senator, unfortunately, I cannot give you an
    exact answer to that question.
        We do have concern that bias has been in the system for
    quite some time. The OIG notes in its report that this
    consultant first started acting with States as early as--I
    believe it was 2004 when States' individual error rates started
    dropping dramatically. So I think there has been some level of
    bias in the system for over a decade.
        Chairman Roberts. 2004.
        Mr. Lipps. Yes, sir.
        Chairman Roberts. So we have a problem here that could have
    started 13 years ago.
        Mr. Lipps. That is correct.
        Chairman Roberts. The FNS review, Mr. Lipps, for fiscal
    year 2015 found that 42 out of 53 State and Territory agencies
    were improperly administrating the quality control process.
        A document referenced by the media indicated that the very
    preliminary estimates of the 2015 national error rate could be
    between 4 and 7 percent. Now, if that is the case, 7 percent
    would be almost double the 2014 error rate. Something is pretty
    fishy here.
        That was biased and would have indicated over $5 billion in
    error. Do you have any updated estimates for 2015?
        Mr. Lipps. Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, we do not. The data
    is so significantly biased that we do not feel we can provide
    you an accurate measure of that rate.
        Chairman Roberts. So you are basically saying that the data
    was unreliable, and so, therefore, you could not release the
    error rate for 2015 or 2016?
        Mr. Lipps. Yes, sir.
        Chairman Roberts. Do you have better data now?
        Mr. Lipps. We believe we will have accurate data with the
    ability to report a rate to you in 2017. As I stated in my
    testimony, we have entered corrective action plans with these
    42 States, and believe that the bias will be removed
    significantly, and our statisticians advise that we can get you
    an accurate rate for 2017.
        Chairman Roberts. Well, I appreciate that, but we have no
    idea how much taxpayer money was wasted. It could be $3
    billion. It could be $5 billion. It could be $10 billion.
        Mr. Lipps. Yes, sir.
        Chairman Roberts. I think it goes without saying, that is a
    lot of money.
        During the 2015 review, were States fully cooperating with
    FNS?
        Mr. Lipps. Senator, there was a range on that. Some
    certainly were. Many were not, and there were certainly some
    egregious practices that OIG recognizes in their report. Some
    States were not forthcoming with information with FNS staff,
    and we did have difficulty getting all of the information from
    all of the States.
        Chairman Roberts. Can you describe some of the difficulties
    for us?
        Mr. Lipps. For us to be able to perform accurate re-
    reviews, we have to have the entire case file from the States.
    States did not all want to give us access to their data.
    Sometimes there are legitimate issues with us being able to
    access that data, and we need to work on those going forward.
    But we do believe that some of the States were intentionally
    keeping that data from us.
        We believe that some States had destroyed portions of the
    data that was part of their review before we came in to review
    those.
        Chairman Roberts. Is this an open investigation?
        Mr. Lipps. Yes, sir. There is an ongoing investigation that
    my colleagues at OIG might be able to comment on more
    thoroughly.
        Chairman Roberts. I understand the FNS did their own
    reviews of SNAP cases in 2016, while States worked to correct
    their processes. During the '16 case reviews, what level of
    error did you find? Approximately how much in improper payments
    does that indicate?
        Mr. Lipps. Senator, I would unfortunately give you the same
    answer, that we cannot give you an accurate measure.
        I do think as the rate reported in 2014 was 3.66 percent
    and we have noted significant bias, it is definitely above 4
    percent but could be significantly higher.
        Chairman Roberts. I recognize you just recently came on
    board of the Department. I think it was June. But it is
    absolutely imperative that we work together, the Department and
    all Committee members, to address these issues.
        Ms. Coffey, let me ask--the OIG noted that the
    investigation is ongoing, but Wisconsin and Virginia have
    settled with the Department of Justice. How many of the 42
    States that have had issues are currently being investigated?
        Ms. Coffey. Unfortunately, since it is an ongoing
    investigation and the States are considered the subjects, I
    cannot comment on the specific number, but it is multiple
    States that are involved in the investigation.
        Chairman Roberts. Multiple.
        Ms. Coffey. Yes, sir.
        Chairman Roberts. So it could be all 42? It could be 20?
    Bigger than a bread box? What are we talking about here?
        Ms. Coffey. I would say it is not all 42. That is what I
    can offer you at this time.
        Chairman Roberts. A significant number.
        Ms. Coffey. It is a significant number, sir.
        Chairman Roberts. Have you ever encountered a case like
    this where so many States had been defrauding the Federal
    Government?
        Ms. Coffey. Sir, I have been doing this job for a number of
    years, and I can tell you this is a unique situation. We have
    not encountered this type of an investigation previously in my
    experience.
        Chairman Roberts. We need a better adjective than
    ``unique,'' but we will work on that.
        During your investigation, did OIG look into the
    information regarding pressure, pressure on State employees to
    use information from a consultant?
        Ms. Coffey. Sir, during the course of the investigation--
    and I think that is also part of public knowledge--for the
    State of Virginia, there was allegations that pressure was
    placed upon the employees to adhere to the methods from the
    consultant company, and that is something that we did look
    into. However, we do not have jurisdiction to impact the
    employees within the State of Virginia unless it was a criminal
    matter, and in that--in this instances, within the State of
    Virginia, it was an administrative matter that was handled by
    the State of Virginia.
        Chairman Roberts. If States under investigation decide not
    to settle with the Department of Justice, what further action
    could occur?
        Ms. Coffey. I cannot comment specifically in this
    particular instance. However, just generally speaking, if there
    is a criminal or civil matter that we are working with the
    Department of Justice on, if we are not able to reach a
    settlement agreement, the next step typically would be that
    that matter would go to trial, either a criminal or civil
    trial, depending on the nature of the litigation.
        Chairman Roberts. So that number of States that we have
    indicated before--15, 20--we do not know, or you cannot comment
    on it. I understand that. The Department of Justice would enter
    into that.
        Based on your in-depth audit, what role do you believe the
    almost $50 million a year in State bonuses played in creating
    conflicts of interest?
        I am sorry. That goes to Mr. Harden.
        Mr. Harden. Mr. Chairman, we think the conflict of interest
    really stems from FNS's two-tiered process for the QC process
    where States and the Federal level are involved.
        What we found was that process is vulnerable to State abuse
    due to conflicting interest between accurately reporting the
    error rates and incurring what would be penalties or mitigating
    errors and receiving bonuses for exceeding the standards.
        We considered this a very inherent conflict of interest for
    the States, and it is why it led to us make the recommendation
    that they are still working on to look at that process and see
    if there is a cost-beneficial way to move away from the two-
    tiered process to having either FNS do it alone or through a
    third party that is doing it independently.
        I would also want to recognize that as part of our working
    the audit, we know that this recommendation is not new,
    necessarily. It is something that was recommended back in 1987
    by an outside study that noted the conflict of interest that
    went on with the process.
        Chairman Roberts. So, basically, the program was
    incentivizing bad behavior?
        Mr. Harden. Yes, the stuff that we heard from State--State
    staff as we did our work they expressed concern with what the
    consultants were wanting them to do and training them to do,
    but some States said it was kind of a keeping with the Jones
    type of thing. They knew they needed to use the consultants to
    help get their error rates down or else they would not be in
    line for the bonuses. They recognized that their competing for
    the bonuses was an inevitable consequence of that.
        Chairman Roberts. So they were gaming the system.
        Can you describe what you found in your audit regarding the
    methods by which States tried to eliminate errors or otherwise
    improperly reduce their error rate? You commented on that to
    some degree, but could you expand on that?
        Mr. Harden. Yes. We found that the consultants were used to
    train the State QC staff on techniques that would exploit
    vulnerabilities in the process. They focused--the consultants
    focused their work on what--mostly on QC workers and how they
    could mitigate the errors rather than use the errors to improve
    the process, which is what the intended part is.
        They also very much encouraged the use of error review
    committees by States to eliminate the errors as opposed to
    working on solutions to make the program stronger.
        Chairman Roberts. How did the FNS respond to the
    recommendations from the OIG audit?
        Mr. Harden. I would say this was a very difficult audit. It
    is probably one of the most sensitive ones that I have worked
    on in my career, and I have been with OIG my whole career.
        But, in our typical fashion, we worked with the agency as
    we learned what we were learning through the process. We would
    sit down with the agency and make sure we understood what we
    were hearing and find out if there was any other information
    that we needed to consider.
        At the time we issued the report, we did not reach
    agreement on all the recommendations and the corrective actions
    to take, but I would like to say since that time, we have
    reached agreement on all 19 recommendations. They have reported
    out that they have implemented 14 of those recommendations and
    are working on the remaining five.
        So a number of the steps that Mr. Lipps referred to in
    terms of how they are improving the program are in line with
    the recommendations we made. So later down the road, when we
    take up reviewing this as a follow-up, we will look to see how
    effective those changes were.
        Chairman Roberts. But there was pushback prior to this
    latest better relationship that you had with FNS.
        Mr. Harden. Yes. There was pushback throughout the process,
    and I would say it is because of the sensitivity of the matter.
    It included discussions all the way up through the former Under
    Secretary level, but from my perspective and opinion, having
    discussions at that level is just part of the process that we
    do for any of our major audit work. We need to hear their views
    and how they think of things. We do not always agree, but we
    need to hear what they are having to say, talk those things
    out, and decide on proceeding on a path forward.
        Chairman Roberts. You noted in your testimony that in
    fiscal year 2013, SNAP had the highest participation level in
    the history of the program and yet had the lowest error rate.
    Still, $2.4 billion in error, that is not a small amount of
    money. Do you find record-high participation with a record-low
    error rate to be rather unusual?
        Mr. Harden. I would say that we were aware that the error
    rate was trending down, and it was--from what we learned as we
    did the QC audit, it was caused by a number of factors.
        One of those factors was FNS raised the error tolerance
    threshold in 2012 from $25 to $50 and which meant that anything
    below $50 as an error would not be reported, so that
    contributes to rates going down or having fewer errors.
        I also want to note that as part of the 2014 Farm Bill,
    Congress established that threshold in law and the way that it
    would be changed.
        But FNS also had policies that simplified things, like
    simplified reporting, which caused--or which did not require
    SNAP participants to report changes in income as frequently as
    they had before or had the case workers follow up on that. They
    would not know of different changes because they were not
    required to report them.
        Chairman Roberts. Thank you very much for your testimony.
        I apologize to my colleagues for going overtime.
        Senator Stabenow.
        Senator Stabenow. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a
    very important, very serious issue that we need to address, and
    I do want to make it clear, this is about State reporting and
    what they are doing. This is not about individual people
    committing fraud. This is about what the States are doing in
    the system.
        Many cases, I know the errors are data entry errors,
    administrative mistakes, or may be what you as well certainly
    have found in terms of what they are doing to manipulate the
    system.
        But, Mr. Harden, I wonder if you could give us examples of
    the kinds of things that are counted as errors.
        Mr. Harden. I may have to get back to you with specifics
    because there are like 48 different things that they check as
    part of the QC process, and it is income levels. It is work
    history, if they are working.
        One of the problems that we have found with the work
    requirements is that when the States were checking the work
    requirements, it was not a requirement for them to check on
    that, and so sometimes they did not do the extra digging to
    find out about that. It is determining their status in terms of
    being veterans or--those types of things are the things that
    they are checking to see----
        Senator Stabenow. So it is how much they are really digging
    into----
        Mr. Harden. Yes, that was part of the problem that we saw,
    is that States were following the guidance that FNS provided,
    and the guidance that FNS provided, from what we found and made
    recommendations about, was contrary or different than what was
    in the regulations. So they were following what was in the
    handbook, but the handbook did not agree with what the
    regulations say.
        Then, as the follow-on to that, the Federal reviewers at
    FNS were not really digging into and making independent
    assessments on what the States did. So there was not that full
    review that was necessary to know if the benefit amount that
    was given was correct.
        Senator Stabenow. Great.
        By the way, Ms. Coffey, thank you for being in here. I
    understand you are here for the tough questions, so chime in,
    please, at any time if you want to add anything. Did you want
    to add anything as it relates to the type of errors?
        Ms. Coffey. I can comment a little bit about what Gil said.
    He is much more the expert as to specifically what they are
    checking for, but obviously, what we did see from the
    investigation side, as noted in the two public settlements, is
    that there was definitely encouragement on the part of the
    third-party consultants to misrepresent facts to the Federal
    authorities when they were submitting information to FNS in
    efforts to lower their payment error rate, things like
    stretching their income as expenses and altering documents of
    that nature.
        Senator Stabenow. Okay, the State was doing this. This is
    very serious.
        Ms. Coffey. That is correct, the State.
        Senator Stabenow. Thank you.
        Do errors reflect both overpayments and underpayments, as I
    understand?
        Mr. Harden. Yes.
        Senator Stabenow. Yes. So it could be--it could be either.
        Mr. Harden. Yes.
        Senator Stabenow. When there is an overpayment error, do
    the States, when they recoup the payment, which I understand
    they go back with an over payment, and they recoup the dollars,
    that counts as an error still? Correct?
        Mr. Harden. Yes, it should. But one of the things that we
    saw was that whenever the States QC reviewers would have
    identified an error over or under, they were not necessarily
    communicating that back to the case workers or the people that
    would carry out--actually pursuing that repayment.
        Senator Stabenow. So there is an overpayment.
        The same if there was an underpayment and they corrected
    that----
        Mr. Harden. Correct.
        Senator Stabenow. --that counts as an error?
        Mr. Harden. Yes.
        Senator Stabenow. They should be reporting that----
        Mr. Harden. Yes, ma'am.
        Senator Stabenow. --as an error, even though it has been
    corrected?
        Mr. Harden. Yes.
        Senator Stabenow. That they should be counting that,
    absolutely.
        So, Mr. Lipps, the USDA has issued several memos and
    undertaken a variety of things to correct the bias that you
    talked about with quality control system. Anything else you
    would want to describe to us in terms of the steps that have
    been taken, and do you believe that FNS will be able to issue
    reliable error rates for the fiscal year 2017?
        Mr. Lipps. Thank you.
        I do think the most significant change is the corrective
    action plans that we have entered into with the 42 States, so
    we have identified where they were entering bias into the
    system, and we have required them to report to us how they are
    going to change that. We are following up on those with States.
        So following through on those plans is what gives our staff
    confidence that they are going to be able to report a rate for
    2017, and I have asked that question as many different ways as
    I can, and I am assured we will get you a rate.
        There are a number of other important factors. I talked in
    my testimony about how we are not only changing our management
    model, but our training for our QC reviewers and ensuring the
    States are doing the same for theirs.
        We are requiring that any contracts with a third-party
    consultant with regard to QC reviews are reviewed by the FNS
    national office before they move forward to make sure they are
    not entering into a contract to receive the types of advice
    that they have received in the past. We want to limit that to
    legitimate process-oriented work.
        I also want to say thank you. Congress provided us $4
    million in 2016 to hire 32 extra reviewers at the Federal
    level. I do think one of the issues is that our Federal
    reviewers were expected to review between 6-and 700 cases a
    year, which was not allowing them to dig as deeply as they
    needed to, and we certainly should have looked at that as an
    internal resource issue at FNS but appreciate the extra funds
    that you have provided for those FTEs, and we will ensure that
    they are working hard on that.
        Senator Stabenow. Along that line, because OIG has
    recommended moving away from the two-tier system to a single-
    tier system and in looking at that, it does raise questions.
    Would USDA need additional staff and resources to be able to
    move to a single-tier system?
        Mr. Lipps. I do not have a specific answer on that, Ranking
    Member Stabenow, but I certainly would expect that we would.
        The two-tier process should work, if administered properly.
    We have let a contract with an outside entity to look at this
    issue, and we will report back to you as soon as we get that
    information from them.
        Senator Stabenow. At this point, given what is happening in
    the focus and--the needed focus on all of this and the actions
    that are being taken, do you feel that additional legislation
    is needed to fix this, or are we talking about additional
    resources to support what the Department is currently doing?
        Mr. Lipps. As we have talked about, we have made
    significant internal changes, and we believe that that will get
    us to a corrected error rate.
        I think we want to be careful that in the future, we do not
    end up back in this place, and we certainly want to work with
    you on any ideas that you may have with regard to legislation
    to make sure that this does not happen in the future, whether
    that regards for resources or a change in how this process
    works.
        Senator Stabenow. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Lipps. Thank you.
        Senator Stabenow. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Roberts. Senator Ernst.
        Senator Ernst. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to our
    witnesses here today.
        Mr. Lipps, I would like to start with you, please.
        The USDA administers a handful of the over 80 different
    Federal programs designed to serve low-income Americans, and
    according to the GAO, these programs are too fragmented and
    overly complex for clients to navigate, for program managers
    and policymakers to assess program performance.
        What steps is the USDA taking to better coordinate with
    other agencies to make the safety net more cohesive?
        Mr. Lipps. Senator, we have not taken significant steps
    since my arrival, but I will assure you that we do intend to do
    so, both within the 15 programs that we administer and outside
    of those.
        With regard to what these reviewers have to look like,
    application to this program, I would say is akin to filing a
    tax return. We have to look at income deductions, expenses, and
    then we have additional questions of whether they are complying
    with work requirements. These are very difficult processes, and
    we are always looking at ways to make sure that those eligible
    have access while we are making sure that we have integrity in
    the program. It is always a difficult balance, but I think
    allowing programs, to work across, help on that.
        There are other agencies around the government that have
    access to data that we do not have at FNS that can be helpful
    in that, and so we hope to be working with you all on resolving
    some of those in the future.
        Senator Ernst. Yes, I hope so.
        It is a complicated area, and I think by linking many of
    our agencies together and nesting their skills and abilities
    together, not only can we better assist the Americans that need
    these support systems, but also stop, maybe, some of the fraud
    that might exist out there. So I would just encourage you to
    continue working with other agencies in those areas and also
    improve that coordination.
        Despite over 80 programs and billions and billions of
    taxpayer dollars that have been spent, the Federal Government
    just oftentimes fails to address the barriers to self-
    sufficiency faced by those that are currently living in
    poverty.
        Just a plug for one of my bills, earlier this year, I
    introduced the EMPOWERS Act, and that is a bill that would
    allow States to pursue pilot projects that integrate certain
    programs and better address the challenges that are faced by
    low-income families and individuals, but that does require a
    lot of these agencies working together to find a better way
    forward.
        So we are always looking for efficiencies out there and
    ways to prevent fraud and abuse within the system.
        Mr. Harden, SNAP is one of the largest benefit programs for
    those in need, and the OIG findings are very, very concerning.
    I think you have heard that over and over again from this
    panel.
        What specifically can we do as Congress, especially with
    the Farm Bill coming up? Are there ways that we can address
    these types of systems through any legislation, beyond rules
    that might be able to address it in the agencies?
        Mr. Harden. We would continue to have conversations with
    FNS as we go through this, but as a result of our work in the
    QC process, we did not see the need for any necessary
    legislative change. It was just a matter of applying the rules
    and regs that were already there.
        We do--as an OIG, if we see the need for legislative
    change, we do make those recommendations to agencies and have
    them work through their process for putting them forward. We
    also make sure that we advise committees that we have made
    those recommendations too, but we did not see that this time.
        Senator Ernst. Thank you. I appreciate that.
        Mr. Chair, I would thank you for raising this attention--or
    to our attention here at this level. Thank you for the proper
    oversight necessary for the program to be successful, and with
    that, Mr. Chair, I will yield back my time.
        Chairman Roberts. Senator Gillibrand.
        Senator Gillibrand. Thank you, Mr. chairman.
        Chairman Roberts. I am sorry. Senator Casey. I apologize.
        Senator Gillibrand. That is okay.
        Senator Casey. Mr. Chairman, thanks very much. Thanks for
    this hearing.
        I want to thank our witnesses.
        I want to start with the value of the SNAP program in a
    State like Pennsylvania, a big, diverse State with a lot of
    economic challenges. We have got, for example, in our State,
    SNAP helping 1 in 12 workers in the State put food on the
    table. That means roughly more than 507,600 Pennsylvania
    workers live in households that participated in SNAP in the
    last year. That is what the Census data tells us.
        I spent 10 years in elected office in Pennsylvania, 8 of
    those as a State auditor general, which meant that I was on a
    daily basis kicking the hell out of State programs that were
    not efficient, effective, and in some cases wasting taxpayer
    dollars.
        So we have, I think, an enduring obligation to make sure
    that every program measures up to the expectations of
    taxpayers. That is why this hearing is so important.
        At the same time, I think there are some folks in
    Washington--I do not think anybody on this Committee, but some
    folks that use examples of waste, fraud, and abuse, or error or
    overpayment or whatever the description is, to take a meat ax
    to programs and just hack away at them while allowing other
    programs to be sacrosanct from that same kind of
    accountability.
        My question involves what can we do to make sure that what
    I am told is a payment error rate for fiscal year--I guess, is
    the most recent fiscal error rate for fiscal year 4? Is that
    correct?
        Mr. Lipps. Yes, sir.
        Senator Casey. That is 3.66 percent; is that right?
        Mr. Lipps. Yes, sir.
        Senator Casey. So, with that number in front of us, we have
    got to make sure that we are bringing that number down even
    more.
        I realize States, because they are dealing with the so-
    called QC program, may not measure error rates either fairly or
    consistently. So we have got to make sure that we are holding
    them accountable.
        I direct this to you, Mr. Lipps. What action can we take to
    ensure that our systems drive meaningful improvement as opposed
    to just improving the measure?
        Mr. Lipps. Senator, I think there are a lot of different
    sides to that, but I do think that improving the QC rate is
    really about improving the program as it is delivered to the
    recipients.
        It is--we talk a lot about the money that is wasted for the
    taxpayer, and it is a very important factor in this. But, as
    you say, it is extremely important for the recipient.
        If your QC rate is zero, you are delivering the payment
    that every recipient deserves. That is really what this
    question is, and so the lower we get that to zero, the better
    job we are doing of ensuring that each recipient is getting the
    money that you intended them to have.
        Senator Casey. How do you think we arrive at that point?
    What is the best way to get there?
        Mr. Lipps. I think we always work for a lower error rate. I
    think these things that I have talked about that FNS has taken
    actions on with regard to working with States in our oversight
    to ensure we get there, it is a--it is a partnership between
    the Federal government and the States, and we constantly have
    to work on this issue.
        As you know, there are a lot of State options, and that is
    the significance of States being involved in this process, is
    that they know theirs well. But we want to make sure that each
    State has the ability to adapt to best serve their citizens.
        Senator Casey. The last question I have is with regard to
    the bonus and penalty system. I guess the report, among other
    things, indicates that both bonus and penalty contributed to
    the problem. Do you think there is a need to reevaluate that--
    reevaluate both, I guess I would say?
        Mr. Lipps. There has been a lot of discussion on that
    issue, and we look forward to engaging with you on that. States
    have certainly said that both of those influenced their actions
    in this.
        Senator Casey. Great. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Lipps. Thank you.
        Chairman Roberts. Senator Boozman.
        Senator Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I would like to follow up on the bonus situation. In the
    2012 Farm Bill, I offered an amendment on the floor that would
    strike the State bonuses for low error rates, money that is
    used to encourage the States to do something that they ought to
    be doing, anyway, and would reinvest those savings into the
    Emergency Food Assistance Program.
        As the OIG report shows, these bonuses obviously created an
    incentive for States to submit false error rates to FNS.
        Mr. Harden, do you think that Congress should do away with
    the bonuses?
        Mr. Harden. I mean, in terms of us looking at the program,
    I do not want to say what the policy should be, because that is
    kind of not the auditor's role, but we did note that that was a
    big part of the conflict of interest at States when they were
    looking at themselves and trying to--they were--they used the
    consultants, and they knew that if they got lower error rates,
    they would be getting better bonuses. So it did incentivize
    them to get the error rates lower in a variety of ways.
        Senator Boozman. Okay. Very good.
        So that is a nice way of saying that there is a significant
    problem there.
        Mr. Harden. Yes, sir.
        Senator Boozman. Mr. Harden, as you stated in your
    testimony, OIG made 19 recommendations intended to assist FNS
    to improve their quality control process. Could you briefly
    summarize some of the recommendations? Do any of those
    recommendations carry more weight than others, and if so, which
    ones are they? Has FNS addressed them to the satisfaction of
    OIG? Of the five that FNS has closed out, what has been the
    delay? I know that is a lot.
        Mr. Harden. Yes. I think the most significant
    recommendation that we had in the report is the first one that
    talks about looking into the cost benefit of whether we should
    move away from the two-tier system.
        I know that FNS is acting on that right now. They have a
    request for proposal out and comments and are looking at that.
        A two-tier process can work, but it has to be managed the
    right way, as Mr. Lipps has said. But that is something we
    definitely wanted them to look at.
        A lot of our other recommendations, they are also moving
    out on and have implemented in terms of making sure there is
    guidance out there if you are going to use consultants, because
    there was not guidance in place before, clarifying guidance for
    State QC workers in terms of how they are supposed to carry out
    their QC reviews, as well as redoubling their efforts on the
    Federal review process and making sure that they had the right
    type of oversight from the Federal level to really look at the
    cases that the States were doing and asking the proper
    questions.
        So there are only five that they are continuing to be open
    and have not reported back to the Department that they have
    implemented, and I think the one that will take the longest is
    the one on the two-tier process, which I think is expected
    currently to be put in place by next year.
        So we would then follow up usually after an agency has had
    a chance to implement the recommendations, say 18 to 24 months
    afterwards, so we would definitely be looking at this probably
    in the 2020-2021 audit cycle.
        Senator Boozman. Very good.
        Mr. Lipps, what is the timeline to get the five closed out?
        Mr. Lipps. I do not have exact dates on those, Senator. I
    think we are very close on each of them. We have worked with
    OIG to move forward.
        Obviously, on the question of the one-tier system, we have
    that contract, and it is going to take some time to do the
    analysis and get it back. So it will be at least a year on that
    issue.
        Senator Boozman. So what do you say is the biggest
    challenges facing FNS as you make changes to implement OIG's
    recommendations and improve the accuracy of the SNAP error
    rate?
        Mr. Lipps. Senator, I think the biggest challenge is making
    sure that States are good partners in this and that they are
    working with us to a valid QC rate.
        I think the work of OIG and DOJ has encouraged them to do
    so, and we will continue to be good partners with them.
        What I want to commit to you from within the agency is that
    we re-review our QC oversight regularly so that we do not end
    up in the situation again.
        Senator Boozman. Good.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the panel.
        Chairman Roberts. Senator Gillibrand.
        Senator Gillibrand. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I am very grateful that we are holding this hearing. I know
    everyone on this Committee is very determined to fight poverty
    in our country, and we all know that SNAP is one of our most
    effective tools to do that.
        SNAP can lift families out of poverty, can drive down
    health care costs, and improve people's health. It can help our
    children stay focused at school, and it can improve the lives
    of our most vulnerable citizens.
        The data are very clear that SNAP plays an enormous role at
    giving low-income Americans access to the nutrition they need,
    and SNAP helps Americans in every community and our cities, our
    small towns, and our rural communities. Even as SNAP
    participation drops, we must remind ourselves that there are
    millions of Americans who are working hard but still do not
    earn enough to buy the food they need, and so they rely on
    SNAP. SNAP is an essential program, and it is a program that
    works.
        So I want to thank the witnesses today for their testimony
    and to work to make SNAP serve Americans more efficiently and
    effectively.
        Concerning the SNAP standard medical deduction, many of
    your concerns raised about quality control in this morning's
    hearing are about how different State agencies conduct their
    reviews of client paperwork.
        I have recently introduced the SNAP Standard Medical
    Expense Deduction Act of 2017, that would standardize the
    deduction for seniors and disabled individuals with high
    medical costs. Would more uniform and simple deductions like
    this help make QC easier for the State agencies and FNS to
    verify? Any of you.
        Mr. Lipps. Senator, we look forward to working with you on
    that. Certainly, standardizing things makes the QC process
    easier and the certification process easier. We are just always
    balancing, making sure folks get the benefits that they need
    and the right amounts when we standardize those things, and I
    am happy to visit with you further about that.
        Mr. Harden. I would tend to agree that if it can be
    standardized, it is usually helpful, and then it can be
    consistently implemented.
        Senator Gillibrand. Any thoughts, Ms. Coffey?
        Ms. Coffey. I will defer to my colleagues at the table, but
    yes, obviously standardization, even from the criminal
    investigative side of the house, is helpful for us when we are
    doing our reviews and investigations.
        Senator Gillibrand. Mr. Lipps, we are hearing a lot about
    how SNAP participation rates are falling as the economy
    recovers. In New York, SNAP participation rates dropped 2
    percent in a year. However, not every community recovers as
    quickly.
        The national rate of SNAP participation in rural counties
    is 16 percent, which his 3 percent higher than cities. What
    steps is FNS taking to coordinate with State agencies, and what
    has been done to ensure that rural SNAP recipients, who may
    face transportation issues, can submit their paperwork?
        Mr. Lipps. Senator, one of the great things about SNAP
    being administered by the States is it allows them the
    flexibility to make sure that they are serving their cities.
    Obviously, some of our States are overwhelmingly urban, and
    some are overwhelmingly rural, and some with a combination of
    both.
        So we look to the State agencies to make sure that they are
    serving all those populations, and in our technical guidance
    and overview with them, we want to make sure that everybody is
    getting served.
        Senator Gillibrand. Just to clarify some of our earlier
    testimony, one of my colleagues referred to this as incidence
    of fraud. I do not understand that there is any allegations of
    fraud with regard to these paperwork concerns. Is this an issue
    of fraud, or is it mismanagement?
        Ms. Coffey. So the investigation is actually--the
    settlement agreements were put in place to settle claims of
    False Claims Act, so yes, that is a deliberate act on the part
    of the States to provide information that is not--we would
    consider to be fraudulent.
        Senator Gillibrand. So did you file a case against various
    States for fraud?
        Ms. Coffey. So there are two settlement agreements we
    worked with the Department of Justice on. For our purposes,
    whenever we have an allegation within the--in fact, the
    Inspector General's office on my side, we are obligated to go
    to the Attorney General as part of the IG Act, and so we did
    pursue that avenue. As a result, yes, the settlement claims
    that you see, they were not criminal, but they were civil
    matters that were taken up by the Department of Justice.
        Senator Gillibrand. Are you able to tell us what States?
        Ms. Coffey. At this point, I can tell you there are two
    that are public, but because this is still ongoing--the two
    that are public are Wisconsin and Virginia settlement
    agreements, but I cannot comment on the other ones because
    those are still in process as this time.
        Senator Gillibrand. Can you describe, for the two that are
    public, why you believe it was intentional fraud?
        Ms. Coffey. I think based upon the information that was
    submitted to FNS as well as we do a lot of work relative to
    interviewing individuals, State employees. The complaint
    originally came in from a State employee who was concerned
    about how the materials were being provided to FNS. All those
    factors play into whether or not we have a determination of
    whether there may be fraud present.
        Senator Gillibrand. Thank you.
        Chairman Roberts. Senator Heitkamp.
        Senator Heitkamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and again, thank
    you for this hearing. I think it is critically important that
    instead of waiting for the reauthorization process for the Farm
    Bill that we start talking about these issues in developing
    some strategies and techniques.
        I just want to kind of get back to Senator Gillibrand's
    line of questioning, which is fraud, because I think if
    people--if the headline is the Inspector General finds fraud in
    the SNAP program, people are going to automatically assume that
    that was widespread fraud by applicants.
        So if we can just clarify what we are talking about and
    who--let us just be charitable and say the misunderstandings
    were with the State, I think it would be really important that
    we make sure that we understand what we are talking about here.
        Ms. Coffey?
        Ms. Coffey. From the perspective of the States, typically
    what we see in many of the overpayment--or the payment error
    rate, it is administrative errors or mistakes that have been
    made, and that is really the majority of what you see within
    the program.
        However, in this particular instance, it is clear that
    there is a pattern. That it has been established utilizing
    these third-party consultants to basically look to change
    information that normally States would be reporting to FNS, and
    that information has either been withheld in some circumstances
    or altered in some fashion or guidance has been given out to
    State employees to not follow up on certain pieces of
    information. That is very different, I think, in terms of what
    you see typically with payment error rates.
        You are seeing this is a really overt act on the part of
    the consultants and the States that obviously we have
    identified thus far, so there is a distinction there.
        Senator Heitkamp. But it is fraud in establishing the
    review process, or it is fraud in putting more people on the
    program, on the SNAP program, who are unworthy, or we do not
    know whether they were unworthy or not?
        Ms. Coffey. It is basically we cannot say----
        Senator Heitkamp. Right.
        Ms. Coffey. --because the information was not accurately
    followed up upon.
        Senator Heitkamp. Right.
        So I just want to clarify that what we are talking about
    when we talk about fraud and mismanagement is at the State
    level, where they are administering this program. This is not
    to imply that there is widespread applicant fraud, where the
    applicant--maybe somebody said, ``Well, I think this person
    probably has 1099 income that was not reported,'' no follow-up
    on the 1099 income that was not reported. You do not know
    whether that is true or not because the States have not taken
    the steps that they should have taken to do the investigation
    and, in fact, allegedly, covered up the missteps that they had
    in terms of administering the program. Is that a fair
    characterization of what we are talking about?
        Ms. Coffey. Yes, it is.
        Senator Heitkamp. Okay. So I just want to make sure that--
    we take very seriously this program, and access to this program
    is essential. It is essential for people who live below the
    poverty line. It is essential for seniors. It is essential for
    our recovering and veterans who are coming back who are
    struggling with the transition back into civilian life.
        So we do not want a headline coming out of this saying
    there is widespread fraud, and it is really unfortunate that
    the States have not followed the proper procedure. I will bet
    if we had them in here, they might argue that they did and that
    they just want to put this behind us and that there was not a
    problem.
        The fact that the Department of Justice has chosen to not
    take this criminal, I think is an indication that we need to
    ratchet down the rhetoric on how we look at this. Do you think
    that is a fair characterization?
        Ms. Coffey. I believe it is, and that is part of the reason
    we do not talk about the States that are currently under review
    in the investigation, because we do not want to unfairly accuse
    anyone or anything at this point.
        Senator Heitkamp. I would argue that the Federal
    administration of these programs, not the Inspector General,
    but the Federal administration of the program not setting broad
    guidelines, not auditing and appropriately overseeing the State
    administration of these programs has led--and I see Mr. Harden
    nodding his head--has led to the confusion and has led to this
    problem.
        So I think there is opportunity for criticism all around.
    Is that a fair characterization?
        Mr. Harden?
        Mr. Harden. Yes, it is.
        Senator Heitkamp. Mr. Lipps, I know you are new to this,
    this business. I hope you are taking this all in because it is
    not going to be okay with me. As somebody who was a State
    official who worked with Federal programs, who may have gotten
    dinged on an audit--cannot remember if I did or not, but I know
    there are other ways to look at it. It is really important that
    we not throw out the baby with the bath water, not have a broad
    statement that there was widespread fraud, waste, and abuse in
    the SNAP program, but that we take the information that we have
    gotten today and change outcomes by being more directive and
    looking at solutions like Senator Gillibrand's bill.
        So I look forward to working with this Committee as we move
    forward with the Farm Bill.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the extra 25 seconds. Senator
    Boozman did not use up all of his, so thank you, Senator
    Boozman for those 30 seconds.
        [Laughter.]
        Chairman Roberts. Anytime, Senator. Anytime.
        Senator Heitkamp. Thanks.
        Chairman Roberts. I would say that there are some
    disturbing things with regards to fraud and the people involved
    and the States involved, and there is about three things.
        The integrity of the largest food assistance program that
    spends over $70 billion a year is unknown. That is not
    acceptable.
        The Office of Inspector General has found the quality
    control process is broken and in need of reform, and you are in
    the business of doing that.
        We have a number of States that have defrauded the Federal
    Government and are being investigated by the Department of
    Justice. They are gaming the system.
        Senator Boozman had an amendment that would have taken care
    of that to some degree, but in determining how many, that it is
    an open investigation. Ms. Coffey is correct in stating that
    and only that, but we do not know--we know two, but there are
    42. That is no small number in terms of people who are gaming
    the system. The people who are gaming the systems--or the
    States who are gaming the system, there are people in charge of
    that, and now we are hearing primarily, ``Well, it was the
    consultants, and maybe these States got together and figured
    out how to do that.'' Maybe somebody in the Department knew
    that; maybe they did not. I think that is to be determined, but
    this is a very serious problem. I do not think it should be
    understated.
        Senator Stabenow. Mr. Chairman, if I might just jump in
    here with you as well to agree that this is a very serious
    problem, and to underscore what Senator Heitkamp and Senator
    Gillibrand were addressing on this, because in my line of
    questioning, you indicated if there is an overpayment, it is
    corrected, but it's still counted as an error. If there is an
    underpayment corrected, it is still in error. What we have are
    States who want to get bonuses, who have not been reporting as
    they should be reporting, and so we know that corrections are
    made on underpayments, overpayments, other kinds of things. We
    need to do a better dive, deep dive. USDA needs to have the
    staff to be able to do that and do what OIG is recommending.
        But I agree with you. We have got to look at the bonuses
    and incentives, and if the incentives are creating a situation
    where we are not getting accurate reporting on errors and what
    has been corrected and so on, then that is a big problem, and
    so thank you.
        Chairman Roberts. I would make one other point before we
    get to the second panel. In 2009, the improper payment rate--
    let me point out that is an improper payment rate. That is
    money that should not have been spent. 2009, that rate of a
    percent was 4.36. That is about $2.2 billion. 2010, 3.81, that
    is about $2.5 billion. 2011, 3.8, that is about $2.7 billion;
    '12, 3.42, that is $2.5 billion; 2013, 3.2, that is $2.4
    billion; and 2014, 3.6, $2.5 billion. Then, for some reason, we
    do not have any numbers from 2015 and 2016 because the method
    of determining the error rate was very questionable. But if it
    is 2 percent, it is about 1.4 billion for $70 billion. If it is
    5 percent, that is 3.5 billion. If some of the States would
    have a 10 percent error, that may or may not be true, probably
    not, but that is $7 billion. Fifteen percent--I am not going to
    go there, but I will say it anyway, $10.5 billion. This is a
    major problem.
        Over the life of a Farm Bill, 6 years, 5 years, I mean, we
    are talking an awful lot of money, and that is not acceptable.
    That is the gentlest way I can put that.
        Let us go to Panel 2, please. Thank you, Panel 1. I
    appreciate your testimony. Welcome to the second panel.
        Thank you to our second panel of witnesses. First, we have
    Mr. Sam Schaeffer, the Center for Employment Opportunities. Mr.
    Schaeffer is the Executive Director and the Chief Executive
    Officer of the Center for Employment Opportunities, or CEO, in
    New York. Since 2009, he has worked to expand employment
    services provided by CEO to 18 cities in Oklahoma, Colorado,
    Ohio, Pennsylvania, California, and New York. Mr. Schaeffer
    previously served as the director of Economic Development for
    Senator Schumer.
        Welcome, and I look forward to your testimony, sir.
        Next, we have Mr. Bryan Parker of the Community Food Bank
    of Eastern Oklahoma. Mr. Parker joins us today from Tulsa on
    behalf of the Community Food Bank of Eastern Oklahoma. He is
    currently enrolled in the Lobeck Taylor Culinary Trade Program,
    which provides training and professional skills for the
    restaurant industry. Previously, Mr. Parker served in the Navy
    on the U.S.S. Midway. Thank you for your service. Semper Fi for
    all the marines that you helped--and ran a small business in
    Japan for more than 20 years. Domo arigato.
        Thank you for being here today, and I look forward to your
    testimony.
        Mr. Jimmy Wright of Wright's Market. I would like to
    welcome the witness from Alabama, Mr. Jimmy Wright. I know that
    the Senator from Alabama, Luther Strange, is extremely proud of
    the great work that you are doing in Alabama. We are all
    excited to hear from you today. Mr. Wright is the owner and
    president of Wright's Market. Opelika? Did I nail that?
    Opelika, Alabama. Under his leadership, the store expanded from
    a small convenience store to a 22,000-square-foot supermarket.
    Mr. Wright is an active member of his community, serving as
    president of the Opelika Community Development Corporation, on
    the board of East Alabama's food bank.
        Welcome, sir, and I look forward to hearing your
    perspective.
        Fourth witness is Dr. Diane--``Schanzenbach''?
        Senator Stabenow. Schanzenbach.
        Chairman Roberts. Schanzenbach.
        Senator Stabenow. Yes.
        Chairman Roberts. Pardon me. She is our fourth witness. She
    is the director of the Institute for Policy Research at
    Northwestern University and--oh, I am sorry. You are to
    introduce her.
        Senator Stabenow. That is totally fine. Mr. Chairman,
    whatever you would like to do is totally fine.
        Chairman Roberts. Why don't you go ahead. I apologize.
        Senator Stabenow. Thank you. Thank you very much.
        Chairman Roberts. It only took two taps on the shoulder for
    me to understand that you were going to introduce----
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Stabenow. No, no, no. Either way is fine.
        Dr. Diane Schanzenbach, you are so important, both of us
    are introducing you, so we are very pleased that you are here.
    Director of the Institute for Policy Research and the Margaret
    Walker Alexander Professor in the School of Education, Social
    Policy, at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois. Dr.
    Schanzenbach is also research associate for the National Bureau
    of Economic Research. In this role, she studies policy aimed to
    improve the lives of children in poverty, with her recent work
    focus on tracing the impact of SNAP and early childhood
    education on children's long-term outcomes. Dr. Schanzenbach
    was formerly the director of The Hamilton Project at the
    Brookings Institution, and received her PhD in economics from
    Princeton University.
        Welcome.
        Chairman Roberts. We are going to----
        Senator Stabenow. One more person.
        Chairman Roberts. I understand that. One, two, three, four,
    five.
        Chairman Roberts. That is right.
        Chairman Roberts. I got this.
        Senator Stabenow. Okay. Good. I got your back here.
        [Laughter.]
        Chairman Roberts. I am going to recognize Senator Strange
    with regards to Mr. Wright, as I know you want to have an
    opportunity to say something on his behalf, sir.
        Senator Strange. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for
    being late.
        Have you had a chance to introduce him, or should I?
        Chairman Roberts. Well, I have already introduced him, but
    I think you could certainly add to that.
        Senator Strange. Well, I am glad to add to it because it is
    a rare opportunity to introduce not only a fellow Alabamian,
    but a friend to this panel. What Jimmy Wright is doing is
    creative. It is cutting-edge. It is going to benefit a lot of
    people. I am very proud to have visited Wright's Supermarket. I
    know it well. It is a true place of Southern hospitality, but
    of creative thinking about how to serve a population that
    desperately needs to be served. I am proud that Jimmy is my
    friend. I am glad he is here, and the whole area that he is
    involved in is important to me.
        When I was Attorney General, I had the opportunity to
    encourage our food banks with a challenge to lawyers across our
    State that I think has been particularly effective in
    restocking them during the summer months, so it is a team
    effort. Jimmy, I am glad you are here. I look forward to your
    testimony.
        Chairman Roberts. We thank the Senator.
        The last witness is Mr. Brian Riendeau. Did I get that
    right? I am close. All right.
        Senator McConnell was to introduce you, sir, but he cannot
    attend at this particular time. So you have served as the
    executive director at Dare to Care Food Bank in Louisville,
    Kentucky, since 2009. You oversee the delivery of more than 19
    million meals per year through a variety of programs at the
    food bank. Previously, you were the vice president of the
    Government and Community Affairs for YUM! Brands as well as
    legislative assistant for Senator McConnell for 6 years.
        Thank you for being here today, and I look forward to your
    input.
        Let us start it off with Mr. Schaeffer.

        STATEMENT OF SAM SCHAEFFER, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
     EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES, NEW
                             YORK, NEW YORK

        Mr. Schaeffer. Chairman Roberts, Ranking Member Stabenow,
    and members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to
    testify about the important role SNAP and the SNAP Employment
    and Training Program play in the lives of millions of
    Americans.
        I am Sam Schaeffer, the executive director of the Center
    for Employment Opportunities, or CEO. CEO is a national
    nonprofit that this year will provide employment services to
    more than 5,000 men and women recently released from
    incarceration.
        In 18 cities across California, Colorado, Ohio, Oklahoma,
    New York, and Pennsylvania, individuals come to CEO sometimes
    just days after being released from prison. Although half have
    never had a job, they are all eager to work, eager to support
    themselves and their families. Food insecurity, however,
    hinders success. Forty-one percent of CEO participants report
    that since exiting prison, they have run out of food and lack
    the resources to secure more.
        Meet Tomas Caban. Tomas served 16 years for a crime for
    which he is deeply remorseful. He took advantage of every
    opportunity in prison, earning a BA in social studies from Bard
    College. The day after release, Tomas signed up for SNAP
    benefits, and he came to CEO to find a job. He was not
    comfortable taking what he remembers being called food stamps,
    but he would have gone hungry otherwise. Tomas spent 2 months
    at CEO, showing up every day for a transitional job, honing
    basic skills like team work and punctuality.
        Tomas wanted to be here today. The reason he could not come
    and the reason we could not get the smile in this photo off his
    face is that he is preparing to start his first job in more
    than 17 years. He will be working as a client advocate in a
    homeless shelter in Brooklyn. Tomas is relieved and proud. He
    has a way to support himself. His time on SNAP is ending, and
    he has a job where he can give back.
        CEO supports 1,250 people a year like Tomas through the E&T
    program. As a third-party partner to multiple States, CEO will
    match every Federal dollar, as much as $2 million this year,
    representing a significant leveraging of resources. CEO has
    been proven to work through a randomized control trial, and to
    be clear, we are one of many evidence-based programs who could
    use E&T to help men and women on SNAP find economic security.
        While my written testimony has several detailed
    recommendations, I would like to highlight the following for
    the Committee.
        First, I urge the continued funding of a SNAP E&T program.
    Addressing food insecurity and employment through a single
    government intervention is aligned with what we know about
    hunger and poverty. Hungry people are incapable of focusing on
    the things we ask them to: making a career plan, showing up
    ready to work, being patient with coworkers and supervisors.
    Even motivated individuals cannot function well when their mind
    is occupied with when they will next eat.
        Second, maintain the flexibility that has been a hallmark
    of E&T from its inception. This flexibility allows States to
    design initiatives responsive to local needs. That said, we
    must balance this flexibility with increased focus on
    evaluation and rigorous data collection. Building on the 10
    pilots authorized in the previous Farm Bill, the Committee
    should authorize an additional 4100 million for States that
    adopt activities proven to work through rigorous evaluation. We
    should build a collection of E&T-specific best practices to
    scale across the country.
        Finally, reconsider the 3-month limit on benefits for
    populations with barriers to employment, such as the formerly
    incarcerated. Men and women on parole, for instances, have
    competing obligations, like mandated drug treatment and parole
    check-ins, that make it difficult to meet required work
    thresholds. States should be allowed to apply for waivers for
    this population and others who have severe difficulty entering
    the labor market.
        In closing, SNAP E&T is essential for the survival of
    individual people and the health, security, and prosperity of
    our communities. Without SNAP, many other problems we are
    trying to solve promoting opportunity, keeping communities
    safe, and supporting strong families become harder, if not
    impossible.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Schaeffer can be found on
    page 67 in the appendix.]
        Chairman Roberts. Thank you for your testimony and that
    excellent presentation in regards to that individual that is
    now a working part of our society. That is very helpful.
        Mr. Parker.

       STATEMENT OF BRYAN PARKER, COMMUNITY FOOD BANK OF EASTERN
                       OKLAHOMA, TULSA, OKLAHOMA

        Mr. Parker. Thank you. Thank you for allowing me to testify
    today.
        My name is Bryan Parker. I am a 51-year-old father of two,
    a native of Tulsa, Oklahoma, and a recipient of food stamps--I
    am sorry--SNAP benefits.
        I am also a veteran. I served on board the U.S.S. Midway
    from 1985 to 1988. I then lived in Japan for the next 20 years
    as the owner of a small chain of English cram schools. I was
    also a physical fitness trainer for MMA fighters and of
    professional wrestlers.
        In 2010, I moved back to Tulsa to be with the family and
    friends here, left behind my two daughters, who are both
    successful, my oldest being an architectural engineer and my
    youngest also a chef, both quite successful in moving forward
    with their lives as adults.
        I have been in the restaurant industry myself for my entire
    life. I have held every position from dishwasher to a general
    manager and still take great pride in being prepared to step
    into any one of those positions at any given time to help my
    crew get through a crunch.
        I have always been a hard worker, and I believe in it. I
    have always felt accomplished and successful. I have never
    worried about paying a bill, buying food, or wondering where I
    was going to get the next meal. That was a thought that never
    crossed my mind.
        But like many people do, I lost my job. This happened 2 or
    3 years ago, and it is rough. I felt down on my luck,
    depression. I battled anxiety, and every day, it seems to grow
    a little bit stronger. You lose hope after a while. Every day
    that goes by without landing a job, it gets rougher.
        So while trying to find work, I had to find ways to cut
    spending. It was not too long before I would no longer--because
    I could no longer afford to keep my car or my home or anything
    else, for that matter. With each interview that went without
    the promise of a new job, the struggles just kept becoming more
    and more complicated.
        When it seemed that nobody was willing to give an
    opportunity to a man, it is tough when you are 51 years old,
    for anybody, but when you are looking for work, it is daunting.
    When you find yourself trying to land these jobs, when you are
    working out of a cheap midtown motel, it gets even more
    difficult.
        SNAP during this time was a lifesaver. It provided
    nutrition. It gave me hope. A man can endure a lot of pain and
    suffering, but one thing that is almost impossible to ignore is
    hunger.
        [Pause.]
        Mr. Parker. Excuse me.
        It is hard to live up to the--to your only responsibilities
    as a provider when you are not providing. I am very thankful
    for the SNAP program and for the SNAP benefits that I have
    received while trying to get back on my feet.
        I am happy to say that someone has finally decided to give
    me a chance, though, a second chance. I am currently enrolled
    in the Community Food Bank of Eastern Oklahoma's Culinary Trade
    Program, and I am over halfway finished with the 16-week
    course.
        The Culinary Trade Program is free to qualified
    participants, and it helps people needing a second chance in
    life.
        I am currently working there 5 days a week for at least 7
    hours a day. The program teaches professional cooking skills
    and life skills. The executive chef, Jeff Marlow, likes to
    remind us of his AA&E. That stands for--it is his little motto.
    It stands for ``attitude, attendance, and effort.'' He likes to
    tell us that these are the keys to life.
        Well, when I graduate from the Culinary Trade Program, I
    will--upon successful completion of the program and the final
    examination, I will leave the course with a Food Handlers
    Manager's Certificate and a set of chef knifes and some other
    little perks. All of the--this certification is also
    transferrable anywhere in the United States. It is a good
    program, and it is a program that has helped put me in a
    position to where I will be able to land any position I want,
    again, in the food industry.
        Ultimately, I would love to get my own food truck and
    further down the line move that into a more brick-and-mortar
    type of a scenario with a larger menu and a relaxing
    atmosphere.
        Immediately following this course, completion of the
    course, I will find myself in almost any professional kitchen I
    would like to work in, and that with hard work, really hard
    work, the training and my passion for cooking, my dream of
    ending my own business will become a reality.
        None of this would have been possible without the help of
    the food--the SNAP program and the Culinary Trade Program. I
    see every day how important SNAP is to many lives in the
    community. Everyone needs to eat, not just the employed or the
    wealthy or middle class. Everyone needs food, and food, it
    provides the fuel and the strength that we need. SNAP helps
    those in need, one step closer to self-sufficiency.
        Most do not even consider hunger to be an obstacle. It is
    hard to unless you have been there. If it were not for SNAP, I
    would probably--I would probably be homeless, and that is not
    easy to say. I am a proud man. Unless you have been there, you
    really would not--you would not understand it. All you can do
    is focus on when you might eat again or how you are going to
    come up with the 40 bucks it takes to stay in a cheap motel one
    more night. This is why SNAP is important to me and the people
    that need it.
        Honestly, I believe anyone working, middle-class
    individual, it is just one life-altering change or event, bad
    event away from being in the same situation.
        One day, I want to be able to pay it forward, and
    hopefully, I am doing that right now.
        Thank you for allowing me to tell my story today. I am
    blessed and fortunate to be here. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Parker can be found on page
    60 in the appendix.]
        Chairman Roberts. Bryan, from a marine to a Navy veteran--
    and I thank you for your service--well done.
        Mr. Parker. Thank you, sir.
        Chairman Roberts. Mr. Wright.

     STATEMENT OF JIMMY WRIGHT, PRESIDENT, WRIGHT'S MARKET, INC.,
                            OPELIKA, ALABAMA

        Mr. Wright. Good morning, Chairman Roberts, Ranking Member
    Stabenow, and distinguished members of the Agriculture
    Committee.
        My name is Jimmy Wright, and I am the owner of Wright's
    Market in Opelika, Alabama. It is an honor and a privilege to
    be before you this morning.
        I have been asked to testify today by the National Grocers
    Association on behalf of the retailers and wholesalers that
    comprise the independent sector of the supermarket industry.
        Wright's Market is a small, family-owned, full-service
    supermarket. We have accepted SNAP as a form of tender
    essentially since the store opened, and we understand the needs
    of these customers extremely well, including many who are
    elderly.
        We began a shuttle service 3 years ago called ``Wright 2
    U'' for our customers who are unable to get to the store due to
    a lack of transportation. We expanded this service last August
    when we launched an online delivery option that serves the
    communities of Opelika and Auburn. We have been very pleased
    with the success of this service.
        I am grateful this service has given us a unique
    opportunity to participate in the Online SNAP Purchasing Pilot
    Program, and we are confident in our ability to execute this
    model efficiently and effectively for SNAP customers.
        We have been willing to take the risk by investing time and
    capital into this initiative. We are still waiting for the
    green light from USDA.
        The supermarket industry is changing rapidly, and for small
    businesses like Wright's Market to successfully innovate in
    food retail, we need the Government to keep up the pace with
    our ambitions.
        When the USDA transitioned from paper vouchers to EBT
    cards, our SNAP customers benefitted, and our store achieved
    new efficiencies. Implementing this pilot will be an important
    step in the right direction, much like the EBT transition.
        As one example of the possibilities this pilot can bring,
    we are planning to leverage our delivery to SNAP customers with
    other community services. For example, I am working on a
    program with East Alabama Medical Center to put physician
    assistants or RNs on our delivery vehicles to provide basic
    medical checkups or care to these customers, many who live in
    the rural areas that lack access to medical care and therefore
    often wind up in the ER with chronic medical issues.
        As the Committee examines other ways to improve Federal
    nutrition programs, I would suggest you start by ensuring a
    favorable regulatory climate for supermarkets. We understand
    there is a desire for some lawmakers to restrict food choices
    for SNAP recipients.
        While we support the goal of promoting healthier eating,
    the implementation of such an idea would be completely
    unworkable for the independent supermarket community. The added
    regulatory burden and costs coupled with an inevitable stigma
    that our SNAP customers would face may put some grocers out of
    business and, therefore, make food insecurity worse.
        Instead of Government mandates, we believe that programs
    such as FINI, HFFI, and SNAP-Ed have proven to be effective in
    expanding healthy food access and incentivizing healthy food
    purchases. For this reason, we support their reauthorization in
    the next Farm Bill.
        To encourage more small businesses growth in our industry,
    we also recommend a more efficient process for the approval of
    SNAP applications for small retailers in good standing with the
    program.
        We appreciate the progress that FNS has made in making the
    process more efficient for larger store groups, and we
    encourage them to expand this to other retailers in good
    standing.
        Not too long ago, I helped a nonprofit ministry in Atlanta
    open a small store named Carver Market in an Atlanta food
    desert, and it took nearly 3 months to get the SNAP license
    approval from USDA. Delays for store openings in food-insecure
    areas is frustrating, and we would appreciate any potential
    improvements to the process.
        The SNAP program, in my opinion, is one of the most
    important and efficient programs our nation offers. In our
    business, it creates jobs. In our community, it helps those in
    need.
        Finally, NGA commends USDA and the particular team at FNS
    for their tireless work to respond to the back-to-back
    disasters caused by Hurricanes Harvey and Irma. Throughout both
    disasters, the Department has been proactive, and it has been
    in communication with the retail food industry and State
    agencies. We sincerely appreciate the hard work that has been
    done and continues to be done by the FNS staff.
        Thank you for your time. I look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Wright can be found on page
    93 in the appendix.]
        Chairman Roberts. Dr. Schanzenbach.

     STATEMENT OF DIANE SCHANZENBACH, Ph.D., DIRECTOR AND MARGARET
     WALKER ALEXANDER PROFESSOR, INSTITUTE FOR POLICY RESEARCH AT
              NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY, EVANSTON, ILLINOIS

        Ms. Schanzenbach. Thank you, Chairman Roberts, Ranking
    Member Stabenow, and members of the Committee. Thanks for the
    opportunity to appear before you today.
        My name is Diane Schanzenbach, and I am the director of the
    Institute for Policy Research and a professor at Northwestern
    University.
        SNAP is a highly efficient and effective program. It kept
    8.4 million people out of poverty in 2014, including almost 4
    million children. It is sufficiently targeted to families who
    need the benefits the most. It reduces the likelihood that
    families have trouble affording food and serves as an automatic
    fiscal stabilizer in times of economic downturns.
        A key reason for SNAP's success is that it relies on the
    private sector to provide efficient access to food through
    grocery stores and other retail outlets. The program's reliance
    on the free-market system has been a critical feature of SNAP
    since its beginning.
        SNAP serves a diverse caseload. The overwhelming of
    individuals who participate, nearly 80 percent of participants
    are children, the elderly, disabled, or working adults. The
    employment rate among SNAP households has consistently climbed
    over the past two decades, and there is no evidence that SNAP
    has a sizeable negative impact on employment rates.
        SNAP benefits the wider economy by providing an effective
    stimulus during difficult economic times. By design, SNAP can
    very quickly adapt to economic downturns. As more households
    become eligible for the program, for example, due to job loss,
    they can be quickly enrolled with total program outlays
    automatically increasing along with need.
        SNAP payments and caseloads increased in the wake of the
    Great Recession but have been falling since their peak at the
    end of 2012, with the Congressional Budget Office predicting
    further declines in coming years in response to the
    strengthening economy.
        SNAP recipients quickly spend the benefits providing a
    rapid fiscal stimulus to the local economy, including the
    retail, wholesale, and transportation systems to deliver the
    foods purchased. The USDA estimates that every $5 in new SNAP
    benefits generates as much as $9 in additional economic
    activity.
        Alan Blinder and Mark Zandi have found that Congress'
    authorization of the temporary SNAP increase during the Great
    Recession had a larger fiscal stimulus impact than did any
    other potential spending increase or tax cut policy.
        SNAP's entitlement structure, therefore, is one of its
    greatest strengths. Block granting or otherwise capping the
    program would fundamentally undermine its timely stabilizing
    impact on the macro-economy.
        SNAP also enables families to buy nutritious foods that
    they otherwise could not afford, such as vegetables and healthy
    proteins, and it reduces food insecurity.
        Recent research that I have conducted documented that SNAP
    is a very good investment that has lasting positive impacts on
    children. Those who had access to the SNAP program during
    childhood were 18 percentage points more likely to graduate
    from high school, and they grew up to be healthier. Women, in
    particular, were more likely to become economic self-sufficient
    adults due to access to SNAP during childhood. In other words,
    SNAP is not a welfare trap, but instead, we should think of it
    as an investment in children.
        In terms of potential reforms to SNAP, while SNAP is
    effective, it would be even more effective if the benefit were
    better aligned with families' needs. Evidence suggests that
    modest increases in SNAP benefits would improve dietary quality
    and reduce food insecurity.
        SNAP could also broadly adopt market-based policies to
    encourage participants to consume a healthier diet. Market-
    based policies that produce rebates for purchase of healthy
    foods or bonus dollars for use at farmers markets and grocery
    stores would increase healthy food consumption among SNAP
    recipients.
        The Committee could also serve children in nutritional need
    better by measuring and establishing performance metrics for
    cross-enrollment of eligible SNAP participants into WIC,
    similar to the performance metrics for the National School
    Lunch Program. Such a move would turn needed attention to
    serving this important and vulnerable group.
        Strengthening SNAP is a smart public investment that will
    improve both public health and economic growth.
        Thank you, and I look forward to answering any questions
    that you have.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Schanzenbach can be found on
    page 83 in the appendix.]
        Chairman Roberts. Thank you, Doctor.
        Mr. Riendeau.

     STATEMENT OF BRIAN RIENDEAU, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, DARE TO CARE
                    FOOD BANK, LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY

        Mr. Riendeau. Chairman Roberts, Ranking Member Stabenow,
    and members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me here
    today.
        I am Brian Riendeau, executive director of the Dare to Care
    Food Bank in Louisville, Kentucky, and I am honored to
    represent not only my food bank but Feeding America's network
    of 200 food banks that serve more than 46 million people in
    need.
        Our collective vision is a hunger-free America, a country
    where everyone has enough to eat at all times to live an active
    and healthy life.
        Dare to Care works with more than 300 agencies across 13
    counties in Kentucky and Indiana. Our service area spans nearly
    4,000 square miles and includes urban, suburban, and rural
    counties.
        Now, I know that to make sound decisions regarding funding
    of Federal nutrition programs, you need sound data, and I have
    submitted extensive written testimony that will, hopefully,
    supply some of that.
        In my remarks, however, I would like to provide two
    testimonials to create a larger context for this discussion.
    After all, behind each piece of data is a real person.
        So, first, please meet Ray, a client in Kentucky who
    receives TEFAP. In Ray's words, ``I am a 73-year-old veteran,
    military veteran. I was diagnosed with stage IV cancer, was
    unable to work, had a sick wife and sister to care for. My
    local food pantry signed me up for the monthly TEFAP program,
    and it has helped me through this tough past by supplementing
    our other sources of food, so we have enough to eat. I cannot
    begin to thank those who made this program possible.
        Second, meet Sarah, director of one of our partner
    agencies. In Sarah's words, ``At our food pantry, we have
    regular volunteers who get to know the clients we serve. They
    hear their stories of scarcity and insecurity. They hear the
    woman who was so grateful for her TEFAP box because she had to
    pay extra for medicine that month. They know the grandparents
    who are raising their grandchildren and receive no additional
    assistance. One such family did not leave the parking lot after
    getting their box. They ate it immediately in the car. The
    TEFAP food helps us stabilize our clients' lives.''
        So throughout this renewal process, let us always remember
    the real people--there are real people whose lives may be
    impacted by the decisions we make here.
        Last year, Dare to Care Food Bank distributed over 19
    million meals to 134,000 struggling individuals. That includes
    7.2 million pounds of fresh produce and 3.8 million pounds of
    TEFAP product.
        TEFAP and all the Federal nutrition programs are critical
    to our success. In fact, TEFAP represents 70 percent of the
    food that we distribute. We contribute TEFAP with food that is
    donated as well as food that we purchase to meet the needs we
    see in Kentuckiana.
        The highly nutritious products we receive through TEFAP
    greatly increased our overall nutritional mix of our food
    contributing to the health of our clients.
        TEFAP is particularly important among Federal nutrition
    programs because, in my service area, nearly 50 percent of our
    food-insecure neighbors have incomes too high to qualify for
    SNAP. The food Dare to Care provides, including TEFAP, is often
    all that is available to offset hunger.
        Yes, unemployment is down, but food insecurity remains
    unacceptably high, and I urge the Committee to ensure continued
    strong funding of all the Federal nutrition programs,
    particularly TEFAP, in the upcoming bill.
        Dare to Care Food Bank also benefits by the Kentucky Farms
    to Food Banks Program. This initiative increases access to
    healthy food for struggling Kentuckians by distributing surplus
    and No. 2-grade produce which is fresh and edible but not
    saleable because of minor blemishes or size discrepancies. With
    State and private funds, the Kentucky Association of Food Banks
    helps farmers cover their costs to pick, package, and deliver
    their unmarketable produce to food banks.
        Through the leadership and the support of our Kentucky Ag
    Commissioner, Ryan Quarles, this program provides crucial
    support to farmers, reduces food waste, and feeds the hungry.
    It is something that other States have implemented and that I
    would urge the Committee to consider scaling it nationwide.
        In conclusion, I firmly believe that hunger is solvable,
    and my food bank colleagues and I are dedicated to the task and
    will continue to work together with you and private
    stakeholders to achieve our vision of a hunger-free America.
        Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Riendeau can be found on
    page 62 in the appendix.]
        Chairman Roberts. Our thanks to Panel 2, and thank you for
    taking the time to join us today and to share your insight. We
    really appreciate that.
        Mr. Schaeffer, leading up the Farm Bill, a lot of
    discussion of SNAP has revolved around the concept of work.
    Unfortunately, we do not yet have the results of the work
    pilots from the last Farm Bill, and the question remains on how
    best to facilitate SNAP's participants return to self-
    sufficiency.
        Your testimony referenced a personal case and made several
    recommendations to improve the employment and training
    authorities.
        Conversely, what pitfalls should the Committee avoid?
        Mr. Schaeffer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        While there certainly are pitfalls for the Committee and
    for the next Farm Bill to avoid, I would begin by emphasizing
    that the previous Farm Bill and this Committee's work, in
    particular, has positioned the work requirements under SNAP
    very well, and highlighting those 10 pilots operating now
    across the country is going to help us build an evidence base
    of what is effective.
        I would further add that USDA's investments in their SNAP
    to Skills initiatives are giving the right technical assistance
    to States to design more effective programs also to third-party
    partners, like CEOs. So I think we are on good footing.
    Certainly, as we build this knowledge base and operational
    efficiencies, there are, I think, three pitfalls I think we
    should be mindful of avoiding.
        One is that for E&T programs, there is not a one-size-fits-
    all model. As has been referenced numerous times in this
    hearing this morning, the recipients of SNAP benefits, the
    participants in SNAP E&T programs represent a tremendously
    diverse group of Americans, from folks like Mr. Parker to
    individuals coming home from prison, and we need to be mindful
    that for each of these groups, a different set of job and
    training activities would be more appropriate. Some will need
    less intensive activities; some will need more intensive
    activities. Resisting the urge to sort of funnel everyone
    through one path will be incredibly important. We need to aim
    to find the right program for the right person at the right
    time.
        I would further emphasize that job retention is critical.
    From any individuals who participate in CEO's programs, it will
    be their first ever job. Finding that job is a challenge.
    Keeping that job can be just as hard. So ensuring that the E&T
    program allows for the intensive investments to help people
    manage employment over the long term to gain greater skills to
    continue to move up, up the economic ladder, is a key point.
        Then, finally the SNAP program, the $507 million are spent
    as part of the E&T portion of that program, $200 million--$199
    million, to be specific, actually comes from a match program in
    which States, philanthropy, private donors help leverage a
    correlative amount of Federal dollars. While I think that
    represents a tremendous leveraging ability, I would be mindful
    that certain communities and certain third-party providers
    across the country might not have the same access to those
    economic means. So I think a pitfall to avoid would be ensuring
    that every community can take place in this really important
    program.
        Chairman Roberts. I thank you for that.
        Mr. Parker, thank you for your service to this country.
        What made you decide to enroll specifically in the Culinary
    Trade Program?
        Mr. Parker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is--it was easy.
    It was a passion for food. I think my mom had something to do
    with that when she taught me how to scramble and egg, but it
    started as a child. It has continued through my adult life. It
    is just something I love to do.
        This particular course came to me through my participation
    with the Barracks Program, and they pointed it out to me and
    got me set in the right direction. To have an opportunity to
    work with a great team of chefs is--it is something that is
    worth paying for, and I am fortunate enough to be able to go
    there and, frankly, be--I get a stipend for going there. They
    are almost paying me. So it is an opportunity to go there and
    learn from great chefs and one that you do not pass up.
        Chairman Roberts. As you continue your success with your
    food truck there in Tulsa, what are you going to offer the good
    folks?
        Mr. Parker. Oh, at the food bank, we offer quality, a
    quality product on a daily basis.
        I did not anticipate walking into--seeing a walk-in full of
    high-quality proteins. We have got ribeye steaks. We have got
    anything you want, and it goes out to people who need it. So we
    have got quality ingredients, and we put it out on a daily
    basis with pride. It means a lot to me.
        I thought that I was going to be walking into a bunch of
    flour and sugar and dried goods, and that is not the case at
    all. It is a pleasure to be there, and I am learning from a lot
    of good people.
        Chairman Roberts. But the question I have for you, sir, you
    said you had ambition to get your own food truck.
        Mr. Parker. Yes, sir.
        Chairman Roberts. I just want to know what you are going to
    serve the good folks in Tulsa and Kansas.
        Mr. Parker. Oh, okay. Thank you.
        Chairman Roberts. Kansas is pretty close. If you get
    something pretty good, I will come down.
        Mr. Parker. All right. Well, yes. Anywhere from burgers to
    tacos. I have to wait until I get there to figure it all out,
    but I am thinking about probably burgers or tacos.
        Senator Stabenow. All right.
        Mr. Parker. You are more than welcome, Mr. Chairman.
        [Laughter.]
        Chairman Roberts. It would be Bryan's--maybe Bryan's
    Burgers on the side of the truck.
        Mr. Parker. All right. That is what we are going with.
        Senator Stabenow. That is good. That is good.
        Mr. Parker. Done.
        Chairman Roberts. I offer that at no cost, of course.
        Mr. Parker. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir.
        [Laughter.]
        Chairman Roberts. Mr. Wright, like many grocers in rural
    communities, your store faces a lot of challenges related to
    the supply chain or serving a smaller customer base.
        SNAP-authorized retailers, as you have indicated in your
    statement, must also comply with additional rules and regs that
    add a layer of administrative burden, to say the least, and I
    share your concern that some would like to create additional
    burdens under the guise of--the well-intended guise of
    promoting nutrition by dictating what people should eat and
    forcing cashiers to be the food police. We just do not need
    that.
        Are there any other regulatory burdens that we should seek
    to address or avoid?
        Mr. Wright. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
        I think that that is certainly a concern for our industry
    and how we would handle that.
        Again, back to my testimony, just the ability, if we decide
    to grow and in good standing with the USDA, that we would be
    able to obtain a license and move very quickly on that, and we
    would also ask that a fast track, so to speak, would be set up
    for retailers in good standing and also people who are
    committed to serve the food deserts of America. Those would
    really help us.
        Our big concern that we see looming out there right now is
    the food choice, and any other things that would have to do
    with the processing of the program that would add cost to it,
    that unfortunately would force us to have to pass those costs
    on to our customer, thus, reducing the amount of buying power
    they would have.
        Chairman Roberts. I appreciate that.
        Mr. Riendeau, you mentioned the importance of public
    support to your food bank's operation, but you depend on
    private support as well. Can you give us what percentage of
    food does your food bank receive from TEFAP versus private
    donations?
        Mr. Riendeau. Certainly. We--Dare to Care, about 17 percent
    of the food receive comes from the TEFAP program. We also
    receive food from donations from national donors, retailers,
    local retailers, and increasingly, we find ourselves purchasing
    more food. So, today, almost 10 percent of the food that we
    acquire and distribute is purchased food.
        Chairman Roberts. I understand you all expend some of your
    own funds for storage and distribution of TEFAP commodities.
    Can you give us what percentage of those costs do the TEFAP
    administrative funds cover and what percent that you have to
    chip in?
        Mr. Riendeau. Yes, absolutely. That is a great question.
        So the TEFAP storage and distribution reimbursement covers
    about 23 percent of the cost to Dare to Care Food Bank to
    acquire, store, and distribute TEFAP products. So, clearly, it
    is not covering the majority of those costs, and frankly we
    would love to discuss or love to see the Committee consider
    increasing storage and distribution allocations. It would free
    up funding that we could then allocate towards other programs
    in feeding--acquiring healthy, nutritious food and feeding more
    people.
        Chairman Roberts. Well, we would both--all of us on the
    Committee, would like to encourage some of that at the national
    level. Let me point out what you hear time and time and time
    again. That we have some very tough spending decisions as we
    head into this Farm Bill.
        Are there aspects of the Farms to Food Banks that are low
    or no cost?
        Mr. Riendeau. Well, let me say, first of all, I certainly
    understand and sympathize with the tough challenges facing you
    and the Committee.
        On the Farms to Foods Banks Program, I would love to--I
    would welcome the opportunity to sit with you and your staff
    and talk more about that program and how it might be leveraged
    at the Federal level.
        I know in Kentucky, it is a jointly funded program. The
    State kicks in about 600,000, and taxpayers have an opportunity
    to donate a portion of their return on the tax check-off, and
    then there is also a significant private-sector funding. So
    most aspects of the program do require costs.
        In Kentucky, we found a wonderful private-public
    partnership that works and would love to see if that could be
    replicated here.
        Chairman Roberts. Senator Stabenow?
        Senator Stabenow. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
    thank you to each of you for the excellent panel.
        I first want to say to Mr. Parker, thank you for paying it
    forward on behalf of many people that are not able to be here
    today and for talking about how important it is that our
    country has your back when someone has the need for temporary
    assistance, so thank you.
        By the way, we are roaring back in Detroit with hundreds of
    new restaurants being opened, as well as food trucks. So I
    would suggest that you ought to come on up. We would love to
    have you join us in this great new effort that is happening.
        I was just meeting the other day with folks opening
    restaurants saying they are desperately in need of chefs and
    culinary help--so that is just a plug for Detroit.
        Let me start, Dr. Schanzenbach, talking about the fact that
    SNAP enrollment does go up and down. That is what it is
    supposed to do, and the good news is that the costs are going
    down, the spending is going down because we are seeing the
    economy getting better. The Budget Office says we are going to
    save about $80 billion over the next 10 years.
        Can you tell us a little bit more about what your research
    shows about participation and why it is important that SNAP is
    able to shrink as well as grow when there is need?
        Ms. Schanzenbach. Absolutely. The SNAP program was one of
    our most important programs during the great recession. I mean,
    we, of course, all remember that we saw labor market
    devastation on a scale not seen since the Great Recession--
    Great Depression, actually.
        In fact, our calculations at the Brookings Institution
    suggested that the economy just in July recovered back to the
    jobs numbers that we had at the beginning of that, so it was a
    very long, deep recession.
        You will recall that, a lot of times, it is the people who
    are on SNAP who will be the first to lose their jobs and last
    to get them back. So what the research has found is that every
    dollar that got spent on a SNAP program really stimulated the
    local economy because people spend those very quickly, they
    spend them at local grocery stores, helps families make sure
    that their kids are able to go to school and learn. I mean, the
    program has many, many terrific strengths.
        Senator Stabenow. Great. Thank you so much.
        Mr. Schaeffer, you clearly run a very impressive program
    and appreciate your being here today.
        Can you talk a little bit more about why voluntary training
    and support programs are more effective in connecting SNAP
    recipients to employment than time restrictions or more
    punitive actions?
        Mr. Schaeffer. Thank you for the kind words, Ranking Member
    Stabenow, and yes, happy to address that question.
        CEO participants, as I mentioned, will come into a program
    like ours, weeks, sometimes just days after being released from
    prison, and it is an incredibly volatile time in their lives.
    The challenges that they face are tremendous, from reconnecting
    with family to finding a safe, secure, affordable place to
    live, to accessing the substance abuse treatment that so many
    will need.
        Putting incredibly hard and tight work requirements on
    those individuals, given those completing obligations,
    sometimes is just not realistic for individuals.
        We also find that with many populations who access SNAP and
    SNAP E&T benefits, that point of agency is critical. They have
    to be able to choose the program, to enroll in the program that
    is going to best fit their needs, their interests, and allow
    them to be successful.
        But we found in our program and criminal justice literature
    generally, if you mandate someone into a program, you are much
    less likely to have long-term success. It certainly is critical
    to provide that array of programing to give folks the
    opportunity and the appropriate amount of time to find food and
    economic security.
        Senator Stabenow. Thank you.
        So you are saying Government mandates, in this case, are
    not as effective as voluntary programs.
        Mr. Schaeffer. Correct.
        Senator Stabenow. So thank you.
        Mr. Wright, I am so impressed with what you have been doing
    with Wright's Market and also very impressed that you are
    talking about combining that with health in terms of reaching
    out to people. Obviously, the connection between nutrition and
    health outcomes is so important. I really appreciate the fact
    that you are really leaning into that effort.
        Mr. Wright. Thank you.
        Senator Stabenow. Could you talk a little bit more about
    the economic impacts that the incentive programs have for
    independent grocers like yours?
        Mr. Wright. Well, certainly, in our business, SNAP is
    almost 40 percent of our retail sales.
        Senator Stabenow. Wow.
        Mr. Wright. So it certainly creates jobs, and it is very
    helpful to us from the economic standpoint.
        Some of the other things that the SNAP program brings to
    the table is just reaching--we have seen examples already of
    reaching people that are desperately in need, so there
    certainly is a business side of that, but by the same time,
    just the other benefits for our community, we still see a lot
    of elderly--and people.
        But it is an economic driver. I saw some statistics in
    2015. For every $1 SNAP benefits, I think $1.80 was returned
    back, and I think that a colleague here referred to $9. So it
    is certainly an economic generator. It is something that is
    good for our industry and I think a very efficient program the
    Government does to get that kind of return back on it.
        Senator Stabenow. Thank you very much.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Roberts. Senator Boozman.
        Senator Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        In Arkansas, one in four children struggles with hunger,
    yet not all eligible children are receiving access to their
    nutrition programs that they need.
        Dr. Schanzenbach--did I get that right?
        Ms. Schanzenbach. You did.
        Senator Boozman. Good. You are like me. You probably answer
    to anything.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Boozman. Your research demonstrated clear
    connections between children who have access to SNAP and
    educational outcomes. Do you see connections between the SNAP
    and the school meals, and how is the interaction of these
    programs working on the ground?
        Ms. Schanzenbach. Yes. As I mentioned in my testimony, I
    think the performance standards that you all put in last time
    relating to SNAP and the National School Lunch Program have
    done a tremendous amount of good, making sure that children
    have access to both sets of programs. I would really encourage
    you to consider doing the same with WIC this time because
    participation in WIC is actually very low. While 85 percent of
    infants who are eligible participate in WIC, that falls down to
    about 30 percent by age 4. I think establishing some
    performance standards there would really help these vulnerable
    children.
        Senator Boozman. Very good.
        Mr. Wright, can you expand on the online SNAP pilot program
    that your grocery store is participating in? How do you think
    it can be effective to be able to fight hunger in rural food
    deserts likes ones that we have in Arkansas and I know in
    Alabama?
        Mr. Wright. Again, we are very pleased and honored to be a
    part of the pilot program.
        You know, when people typically think of a food desert,
    they think of in the urban area of Philadelphia, Chicago, or
    somewhere like that. Alabama, much like Arkansas, the
    challenges that we have are in our rural areas, and
    unfortunately, they are in areas that do not have the
    population density to support a full-size brick-and-mortar
    supermarket.
        So we believe using e-commerce and online delivery, we can
    reach into these areas and bring a full variety of products,
    especially fresh produce and fresh meat to these customers,
    that would not be accessible to them as they are today.
        Again, partnered with a health care component, which is
    another area that is missed in these rural communities, we feel
    like we have got a great model that can make a difference
    nutritionally and in health care also.
        Senator Boozman. Very good.
        Mr. Wright, Mr. Riendeau, you both are serving rural
    communities that have food access issues, again, the deserts.
    What are some of the major barriers to food access, and how are
    these being solved from the local level? Sometimes it is
    difficult to push things out at the Federal level.
        Arkansas is very different than Massachusetts or whatever.
    Where we get into trouble is the one-size-fits-all.
        Mr. Riendeau. Right, yes, serving rural areas in our world
    is much--presents unique challenges. There are distances
    traveled, which we do not see in urban areas. There is the lack
    of good partners or just fewer partners that we can work with
    to distribute food, and then there is for particularly in the
    case of children, kids do not congregate in rural areas like
    they congregate in urban areas.
        I was here 2 years ago to talk about the Summer Food
    Service Program and the importance of injecting flexibility
    into that program to allow States like yours and my rural
    counties to adapt the program to meet the unique challenges in
    those communities, and some work was--some progress was made
    there. I think anything that the Committee can do to encourage
    that flexibility to allow food banks like mind to adopt
    programs that fit the unique circumstances we see are certainly
    worthwhile.
        Senator Boozman. Right. Very good. I know the congregant
    feeding issues and all those things really are very, very
    important, and that is just something that we have to deal with
    and provide some flexibility.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Roberts. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Strange. Oh, I am sorry. Senator Brown.
        Senator Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Roberts. I apologize.
        Senator Brown. Sorry, Luther. Sorry about that.
        He is taller. You did not see me. You saw him.
        Chairman Roberts. Well, you sneaked in on my right there.
        Senator Brown. Okay. Fair enough.
        First, I am sorry. We have been doing tax reform on Finance
    Committee and on banking issues with CFIUS, and I apologize for
    not being here.
        Mr. Parker, I have heard already a recounting of your
    story, and thank you for sharing it and your genuineness, and I
    appreciate the Chairman's response to it. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Wright, thank you for what you do in Alabama. We have a
    store. My wife and I live in the City of Cleveland. My ZIP Code
    has had more foreclosures, 44105, 10 years ago, had more
    foreclosures in my ZIP Code than any ZIP Code in America that
    year.
        We have stores not too different from yours, one
    particularly that serves what people called ``food desert,''
    and thank you when you step up as a small businessperson like
    that, so to both of you.
        Dr. Schanzenbach, if I could direct a question to you. Last
    week I met with the Mid-Ohio Foodbank in Columbus and several
    hospitals, CEOs from Central Ohio. They are partnering to
    tackle hunger head-on and had one message for me how food and
    nutrition are so linked to health outcomes.
        We know the ZIP Code you come from, whether it is in
    Appalachia, Ohio, or inner city, Dayton, it matters a whole lot
    to your life expectancy and so much else.
        These CEOs told me the clear benefit they see in safety-net
    programs like SNAP. Good nutrition leads to patients that can
    recover more quickly. Patients who have access to food are
    better positioned, as you said well in this Committee already,
    to avoid chronic health issues. As one executive said, ``We can
    pay now or pay later.''
        Two questions. Your research shows links between SNAP and
    our broader work to address poverty in this country, including
    improvements in health care and educational outcomes. Are there
    improvements we make specifically to SNAP that would accelerate
    these gains?
        Ms. Schanzenbach. You know, in my opinion, the best
    improvements we could make, I guess, are twofold. One is I
    think the benefits right now are very meager, about $4.50 per
    person per day. I think the evidence suggest that a slightly
    larger benefit would improve the effectiveness of the program
    all the more, allow people to escape food insecurity, buy
    healthier foods, and so on.
        The second would be really expanding those market-based
    incentives to buy healthier food, whether that is a Double-Up
    food buck program or other, other programs like that.
        Senator Brown. Well, talk in more detail about if the--
    first of all, I think Americans do not really know. We used the
    term ``food stamps'' for years. That term was seen by far too
    many people in a negative light. I think that is one reason it
    is now called SNAP, but it is still seen that way. Surely,
    people think the benefits are much greater than they are.
    People always have a story about somebody that they judged
    standing in line next to them or whatever. Sometimes it is a
    bit about race. Often it is not. It is just whatever, when
    taxpayers see others up close, the stories are told, as you
    know.
        But talk through what--having access to food, having a
    little bit more in SNAP, what it would mean for families trying
    to move out of poverty. Put us in a position. I mean, we do
    not--few of us, certainly all of us up here--as Pope Francis
    exhorted his parish priest, ``Go out and smell like the
    flock,'' and we do not do a whole lot of that here. We do not
    really see how--we do not hear up close the stories of Mr.
    Parker, and we do not experience it nearly often enough. So
    talk that through, if you would.
        Ms. Schanzenbach. Sure. So there is good research evidence
    that additional--modest increases and benefit levels will allow
    people to buy healthier food, right? So those first dollars
    that you have, especially if you are facing a lot of scarcity,
    you are going to buy high-calorie, dense foods, but then as you
    have more money, you can have a more varied diet, et cetera.
        So the evidence is that modest increase in food stamp--SNAP
    benefits would increase the purchase of vegetables, greens,
    high-quality proteins. In fact, it would actually probably
    reduce the likelihood that people buy fast food. So people buy
    healthier foods with more money.
        Senator Brown. Is there evidence that the programs we have
    done and experimented with and done sort of with fits and
    starts to allow food stamps to be used--or SNAP to be used
    for--at farmers markets, buying fruits and vegetables,
    increasing the value--are those working? In the limited way
    they have been tried, are those working?
        Ms. Schanzenbach. They sure seem to be, right?
        So, as an economist, I will tell you that anytime you
    change the relative price of something, if you reduce the
    relative price of vegetables and fruits, people will buy more
    of them, and, indeed, that is what the research is showing
    based on both the Healthy Incentives Pilot that was conducted
    in Massachusetts and in these Double-Up programs.
        Senator Brown. Thank you.
        I thank--I compliment the Chairman on--this Committee has
    worked on the school breakfast, school lunch program, and
    worked with a number of school cafeteria leaders in my State,
    in Cincinnati, in Marion especially, and worked to get young
    people exposed, particularly if they are not getting it at
    home, to more fruits and vegetables, so that can have some
    impact on lifelong eating habits. We know what that means for
    their life expectancy and their healthier lives.
        So thanks to all five of you on the panel.
        Chairman Roberts. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Strange. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the
    panelists for being here. This is very informative to me.
        Jimmy, thank you for being here to talk about your great
    initiatives. A couple things you did not mention that I just
    want the Committee to be aware of, you mentioned partnering
    with the East Alabama Medical Center to address those issues,
    but also you work with the Hunger Solutions Institute at Auburn
    and our Cooperative Extension Service, brings those resources
    to those needed, constituents, to help them make better choices
    about their food selections and so forth. So I want to
    compliment you on that.
        Also, I appreciate the chairman asking questions about--and
    your raising them in your testimony about the processing time,
    some of the regulatory burdens that you face. It sounds to me
    that is more of a regulatory issues than it is a legislative
    issue, but we will be open to any suggestions you have there.
        I would like to ask you first about--I am so proud that you
    are participating in this pilot brown, but as a small retailer
    addressing a unique problem, I wish you would address the
    challenges that you face or explain opportunities, maybe, in
    dealing with other participants like the larger ones, Amazons,
    Walmarts of the world. How do you see that working? How do you
    differentiate yourself and your challenges from them?
        Mr. Wright. Well, thank you, Senator Strange.
        I have always looked at business, my business, two ways. I
    looked at it on the transactional side and on the relational
    side, and I think that is how most independent grocers in
    America do that.
        Our point of difference is, as independents, we are
    anchored in our communities. We are going to stay here, good
    times and bad. Some of our competitors, when it gets tough,
    they just go and leave.
        As far the online pilot is considered, on a transactional
    side, it is just getting a package from A to B, and that is
    fine. We have to compete in that space, and we certainly
    understand that. That is part of our business.
        The relational side is more of the things we are interested
    in and knowing the people that we serve and knowing them on a
    personal basis, and that is why we want to add the component of
    health care, looking at a much more holistic model of that,
    love that these relationships that we could build would run--
    would carry over in some of the programs that you have heard
    from today.
        But, essentially, my business model and the business model
    for independent grocers from coast to coast is that we are
    anchored in our communities, and whether it is in store,
    whether it is online, we are going to make the relationships
    personal in our communities and be there to serve.
        Senator Strange. I love that approach, that holistic
    approach.
        Mr. Chairman, he has an assistant. He is raising Emily, who
    is 13, I think. She showed me around the store, so this is a
    generational thing, and it is very effective.
        You might in the remaining time tell us a little bit about
    the delivery route you implemented because it is an important
    service to the community, people that cannot get to your great
    facility, and how that is--what feedback you have gotten, any
    advice you might offer to other retailers in your situation
    that are considering doing that.
        Mr. Wright. Thank you.
        Two components to that. We started about 3 years ago, as we
    said in the opening statement, with our Wright 2 U shuttle
    service. Back to some of the conversations we have already had,
    transportation is still a huge issue, even in a community that
    is a pretty decent size. We still see a lot of elderly people
    that just have a tough time getting to the grocery story.
        So we started out having these people call our store. We
    come pick them up. We take them to the store and let them shop,
    and we take them back home. There is no charge to that. We see
    a lot of seniors from that program.
        Now as we roll into the e-commerce component of this, we
    see the same way. We already see in our initial launch, a lot
    of seniors out there that we are reaching now that just cannot
    get out to the store. Even if they wanted to ride in our
    shuttle, they are just not physically able to do that, so we
    see the ability to do that.
        Certainly, as we reach into the rural areas--there are four
    communities that surround Opelika, Alabama, that are anywhere
    from 15 to 30 miles that do not have a full-service grocery
    store. Their fresh food options are extremely limited, and this
    is a way that we see building a route to be able to go out and
    give people access to the grocery store without the grocery
    store actually being there.
        Senator Strange. Well, I want to compliment the panelists.
    As a former Attorney General, I appreciate the reentry efforts
    that you are making. That is a very significant component of
    the criminal justice system, and that work is very important.
        Mr. Parker, congratulations on your success, and the food
    banks obviously are a critical part of the chain of support,
    and I appreciate our economist validating some of the things we
    think are going on. So I thank the panelists, and thank you,
    Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Roberts. We thank you, Senator.
        Senator Donnelly is here.
        Senator Donnelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I want to thank the panel and particularly to Mr. Parker
    for being here to testify before the Committee. Thanks for your
    service to our country. We are very, very grateful to you for
    that and for taking the time to be here to share your story--
    and to the entire panel.
        To Mr. Wright, I will tell you that some of my dear friends
    back home are independent grocers who work hard every day to
    make sure that not only do they run good shops, but that folks
    in our community have a decent meal in front of them, and so we
    are grateful for your American ingenuity and entrepreneurship
    and hard work. That goes for the entire panel as well.
        Mr. Riendeau, one of the things that you do is you help
    Hoosiers in Southern Indiana be able to meet their needs and be
    able to take care of their families, and I want to thank you
    for that.
        I heard regularly from Hoosiers on the importance of
    getting high-quality American commodities, such as Hoosier-
    grown meat and produce, to the people in our country who need
    it most, and that is supported by TEFAP, the Emergency Food
    Assistance Program.
        You highlight the critical nature of TEFAP in helping
    relief food insecurity. Can you share in more detail how TEFAP
    adds value to the foods you distribute from food donations and
    from other programs at Dare to Care?
        Mr. Riendeau. Certainly. I will highlight two things.
        First of all, just the volume of the product we receive
    from TEFAP is critical as we face what remains to be near
    record levels of food insecurity in Southern Indiana and in
    Kentucky. So the product itself is important in terms of
    providing meals to people in need.
        Dare to Care has worked over the last few years to really
    begin using our food and programs to improve the health and
    nutrition of our clients. We know that there is a direct link
    between poor diet and health.
        The problem comes in terms of the donated product that we
    receive. We cannot always count on what that is going to be,
    and we get what we get.
        TEFAP is 100 percent--considered 100 percent nutritious
    foods to encourage, so TEFAP is a critical component of our
    ability to get healthier, fresher food to our clients and
    address those health needs that we see.
        Senator Donnelly. This next question will be for you again,
    Mr. Riendeau, and Mr. Right as well. The importance of knowing
    how to stretch food dollars is really significant. Purdue
    Extension in our States does a great job in helping families
    gain skills and strategies that help make grocery trips more
    successful.
        So, Mr. Riendeau and Mr. Wright, can you share with us more
    about the nutrition education and the skill-building programs
    that you talk to families about to help them stretch their
    dollars and make good food decisions?
        Mr. Wright, would you like to go first?
        Mr. Wright. Sure. Thank you, Senator.
        Yes. An important part of the model we have going forward
    is the Alabama Cooperative Extension Program, SNAP-Ed program,
    and certainly education on how to shop smarter and how to cook
    smarter and how do we cook healthier, I cannot stress the huge
    importance of that.
        The store that I actually am involved with in Atlanta has
    got a program now that is a 6-week cooking program, and it
    addresses the same issues of how to shop, how to stretch your
    dollars, how to make your budget work for you, and what you are
    putting in your basket and how to prepare that and prepare that
    in a healthy way.
        So I cannot speak enough about the importance of the
    education piece and the partnership that we look forward to
    having in Auburn.
        Senator Donnelly. Mr. Riendeau?
        Mr. Riendeau. You raise a great point. One of the things we
    have come to realize as we push more healthy food out and make
    is available is that access is only part of the issue.
        The understanding why it is important to eat, changing
    cultural habits and attitudes, and then understanding what to
    do with healthy products is super critical.
        So we have a program called Cooking Matters, which is a 6-
    week program that teaches adults and children and families how
    to shop for, prepare, and consume healthy food on a budget. We
    have a dietician on staff. She works to operate that program.
    We also hand out nutrition-related information and recipes with
    the products that we distribute.
        A lot of the product we get from TEFAP, oftentimes our
    clients will ask, ``What is this? What do I do with it? It is
    healthy, but I do not know what to do with it,'' so we have to
    educate them. So education, nutritional education is a critical
    component of all the work that we do, and anything that the
    Committee could do to help us on that front would be very
    important.
        Senator Donnelly. One last question, and this would be for
    Dr. Schanzenbach. Can you describe in greater detail some of
    the threats to food security for children and why the
    challenges they face are a little bit different than adults?
        Ms. Schanzenbach. Sure. I have been studying food
    insecurity, especially among children, for quite some time, and
    it is a really hard, hard nut to crack, and in particular, what
    we find is a lot of times in those poorest families, the adults
    in the household are suffering from other challenges, mental
    health problems, depression, and so on.
        As a result, not only it is hard to get a job and hold down
    a job, but it is just hard to go grocery shopping, cook meals,
    et cetera.
        Senator Donnelly. Right.
        Ms. Schanzenbach. So it is no fault of the children's, to
    be sure.
        Senator Donnelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Strange. [Presiding.] Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Klobuchar.
        Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I
    want to thank you and to thank Senator Roberts and Stabenow for
    this hearing today.
        This Nutrition Assistance Program is very important in my
    State, and I am proud to say that our SNAP program last year,
    we had a--2015, Minnesota was one of 11 States that had its
    error rate validated by the USDA and as a result received a
    bonus payment. I am going to have some questions on the record
    from our first panel about that, but clearly, we are doing
    something right.
        Last year, 479,000 Minnesotans participated in the SNAP
    program, but almost 69 percent of those participants were in
    families with children.
        My State is not alone in terms of need. So, Dr.
    Schanzenbach, what more can we do to strengthen SNAP nutrition
    education programs and support efforts taking place in
    communities so that SNAP participants can make healthy choices?
        Ms. Schanzenbach. Sure. So in terms of healthy choices, I
    really think we want to capitalize on what is great about SNAP,
    which is that it works well with the free market system, and to
    do that, typically we need to either change demand for fruits
    and vegetables and healthy foods, either through education
    programs or by changing prices, by giving bonuses for purchase
    of health foods.
        Senator Klobuchar. Very good.
        Mr. Wright, bringing broadband is one of my top priorities
    to rural communities, and we have some real issues in our State
    with that, farmers that do their business at McDonald's parking
    lots and things like that.
        So in the case of the last Farm Bill, it included a pilot
    program to test the feasibility of online SNAP purchases. Rural
    broadband can also, of course, increase access, and do you
    anticipate that access to rural broadband for your customers is
    going to be a barrier for participating in the program?
        Mr. Wright. I am sure we are going to find some of the
    proverbial digital deserts out there, and I guess that is two
    ways to look at that. It may be a challenge, but it also gives
    an opportunity to address some of those issues. But we think we
    can do that with some technology. We still have people today
    that are actually using something like a satellite dish and
    some other things on buildings to be able to access technology.
        So we will find a way to work, make this work, but it would
    be great if this continues to be at the forefront of discussion
    in the Farm Bill that broadband access is improved in these
    areas.
        Senator Klobuchar. Okay. Thank you.
        Mr. Riendeau, one important program that helps alleviate
    hunger is the Emergency Food Assistance Program, and I recently
    joined with Senators Casey and Perdue to be proactive in
    purchasing and donating bonus commodities to places like Second
    Harvest Heartland in St. Paul, and the bonus issue was just
    raised by Doctor. Can you talk about the importance of the
    USDA's bonus commodities, and have bonus commodities from the
    USDA kept pace with the demand?
        Mr. Riendeau. Thank you, and thank you for your support of
    that important program.
        Yes, the bonus component is very important to us. It is in
    addition to the base, and it all goes towards helping us meet
    what we see as near record levels and unacceptably high levels
    of food insecurity.
        Again, I guess I would talk about the nutritional aspects
    of the products that we receive through that program. These are
    high-quality proteins, vegetables, fruits, things that we do
    not get donated, things that we have to either buy or receive
    through this program. So it is critical to helping us not only
    meet the need, but meeting it with the right types of food.
        Thank you for your continued support of that.
        Senator Klobuchar. Thank you.
        Mr. Schaeffer, public-private partnerships play an
    important role in pooling resources, maximizing the value. Can
    you elaborate on your experience with public-private
    partnerships and the employment outcomes you have seen as a
    result?
        Mr. Schaeffer. Absolutely. Thank you for the question,
    Senator.
        It has been not just a hallmark of CEO's approach, but also
    a hallmark of the SNAP Employment and Training Program and I
    think an element that has helped it extend its reach far more
    broadly than otherwise exists.
        I can give you an example in two States in which we have
    worked, Pennsylvania and Ohio. In Ohio, there was a strong
    interest in bringing CEO's reentry services to the State across
    Cincinnati, Columbus, and Cleveland, large numbers of people
    coming home every year facing both food insecurity and a lack
    of employment, and those folks are universally eager to work,
    eager to not be on benefits, but needing that support.
        The State teamed different agencies, the Department of
    Corrections, the Department of Jobs and Family Services to
    support CEO's entry into the State, but part of that was a 50-
    50 match, the support from the Jobs and Family Services through
    the SNAP E&T program. We will be able to leverage in Ohio over
    the next 2 years, I think, over $2 million in that match
    program, and so it is an ability for States to design programs
    and projects, initiatives that are responsive to local needs
    that meet their priorities, but also gain far more resources
    than they would otherwise without the match.
        Senator Klobuchar. All right. Very good. Thank you, all of
    you.
        You brought me a gift, ``Thank you for asking such nice
    questions.'' Thank you.
        Chairman Roberts. [Presiding.] It is amazing what you have
    to do to achieve bipartisan support.
        [Laughter.]
        Chairman Roberts. That will conclude our hearing today, and
    I want to thank each of our witnesses for taking time to share
    your views on the nutrition programs within the Farm Bill.
        The testimonies provided today are valuable for the
    Committee to hear firsthand, and we will follow up with the
    suggestions of various witnesses to meet with our staff, so we
    can further learn from you what we can do to better improve the
    program.
        For those in the audience who want to provide additional
    thoughts on the Farm Bill, we have set up an address on the
    Senate Ag Committee's website to collect your input. Please go
    to ag.senate.gov--been waiting all day to say that--
    ag.senate.gov, and click on the Farm Bill hearing box on the
    left-hand side of your screen. That link will be open for 5
    business days following today's hearing.
        To my fellow members, we would ask that any additional
    questions you may have for the record be submitted to the
    Committee Clerk, 5 business days from today or by 5:00 p.m.,
    next Thursday, September 21st.
        The Committee stands adjourned. Thank you so much.
        [Whereupon, at 12:00 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

    =======================================================================

                                A P P E N D I X

                               SEPTEMBER 14, 2017

    =======================================================================

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    =======================================================================

                             QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

                               SEPTEMBER 14, 2017

    =======================================================================

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    			         [all]