    [House Hearing, 116 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                       EXAMINING THE USDA'S PROPOSED CUTS
                              TO FREE SCHOOL MEALS

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

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                SUBCOMMITTEE ON CIVIL RIGHTS AND HUMAN SERVICES

                             COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
                                   AND LABOR
                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, OCTOBER 16, 2019

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 116-43

                                   __________

          Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

               Available via the World Wide Web: www.govinfo.gov
                                       or
                  Committee address: https://edlabor.house.gov

                               ______

                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    39-486 PDF           WASHINGTON : 2021

                        COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR

                 ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, Virginia, Chairman

    Susan A. Davis, California           Virginia Foxx, North Carolina,
    Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona            Ranking Member
    Joe Courtney, Connecticut            David P. Roe, Tennessee
    Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio                Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania
    Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,      Tim Walberg, Michigan
      Northern Mariana Islands           Brett Guthrie, Kentucky
    Frederica S. Wilson, Florida         Bradley Byrne, Alabama
    Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon             Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin
    Mark Takano, California              Elise M. Stefanik, New York
    Alma S. Adams, North Carolina        Rick W. Allen, Georgia
    Mark DeSaulnier, California          Lloyd Smucker, Pennsylvania
    Donald Norcross, New Jersey          Jim Banks, Indiana
    Pramila Jayapal, Washington          Mark Walker, North Carolina
    Joseph D. Morelle, New York          James Comer, Kentucky
    Susan Wild, Pennsylvania             Ben Cline, Virginia
    Josh Harder, California              Russ Fulcher, Idaho
    Lucy McBath, Georgia                 Van Taylor, Texas
    Kim Schrier, Washington              Steve Watkins, Kansas
    Lauren Underwood, Illinois           Ron Wright, Texas
    Jahana Hayes, Connecticut            Daniel Meuser, Pennsylvania
    Donna E. Shalala, Florida            Dusty Johnson, South Dakota
    Andy Levin, Michigan*                Fred Keller, Pennsylvania
    Ilhan Omar, Minnesota                Gregory F. Murphy, North Carolina
    David J. Trone, Maryland
    Haley M. Stevens, Michigan
    Susie Lee, Nevada
    Lori Trahan, Massachusetts
    Joaquin Castro, Texas
    * Vice-Chair

                       Veronique Pluviose, Staff Director
                     Brandon Renz, Minority Staff Director
                                     ------

                SUBCOMMITTEE ON CIVIL RIGHTS AND HUMAN SERVICES

                      SUZANNE BONAMICI, OREGON, Chairwoman

    Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona            James Comer, Kentucky,
    Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio                  Ranking Member
    Kim Schrier, Washington              Glenn ``GT'' Thompson,
    Jahana Hayes, Connecticut                Pennsylvania
    David Trone, Maryland                Elise M. Stefanik, New York
    Susie Lee, Nevada                    Dusty Johnson, South Dakota

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Hearing held on October 16, 2019.................................     1

    Statement of Members:
        Bonamici, Hon. Suzanne, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Civil
          Rights and Human Services..................................     1
            Prepared statement of....................................     4
        Comer, Hon. James, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Civil
          Rights and Human Services..................................     5
            Prepared statement of....................................     6

    Statement of Witnesses:
        Lipps, Mr. Brandon, Deputy Under Secretary for Food,
          Nutrition, and Consumer Services, U.S. Department of
          Agriculture (USDA).........................................     8
            Prepared statement of....................................    10

    Additional Submissions:
        Chairwoman Bonamici:.........................................
            Letterhead dated August 7, 2020 from National Education
              Association (NEA) on behalf of Alma Adams..............    49
            Letter dated October 15, 2019 from National Education
              Association (NEA)......................................    50
        Mr. Comer:...................................................
            Letterhead dated September 20, 2019 from Congress of the
              United States..........................................    51
            Letter from Congress of the United States................    54
        Fudge, Hon. Marcia L., a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Ohio:.............................................
            Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)Comment
              Letter.................................................    55
            Letter dated October 2, 2019 from Congressional Black
              Caucus.................................................    86
            Letter dated October 16, 2019 from This Mark Matters.....    91
        Hayes, Hon. Jahana, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Connecticut:......................................
            Interreligious Work Group On Domestic Human Needs (DHN)..    93
            Letter dated September 23, 2019..........................    97
        Lee, Hon. Susie, a Representative in Congress from the State
          of Nevada:.................................................
            Letter dated September 20, 2019 from Mazon...............    99
        Thompson, Hon. Glenn ``GT'', a Representative in Congress
          from the State of Pennsylvania:............................
            Letter dated October 23, 2019............................   107
            Link: FNS Quality Control Process for SNAP Error Rate....   107
        Trone, Hon. David J., a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Maryland:.........................................
            Notice of Proposed Rule Making from Maryland Hunger
              Solutions..............................................   108
            Comment on FR Doc # 2019-15670...........................   109
            Comment on FR Doc: 2019-15670............................   112
            Community Eligibility: The Key to Hunger-Free Schools....   113
        Questions submitted for the record by:
            Ms. Fudge................................................   140
            Mrs. Lee.................................................   141
            Omar, Hon. Ilhan, a Representative in Congress from the
              State of Minnesota.....................................   141
            Scott, Hon. Robert C. ``Bobby'', a Representative in
              Congress from the State of Virginia....................   140
        Mr. Lipp's response to questions submitted for the record....   143

                       EXAMINING THE USDA'S PROPOSED CUTS

                              TO FREE SCHOOL MEALS

                                  ----------

                          Wednesday, October 16, 2019

                           House of Representatives,

                Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Human Services,

                       Committee on Education and Labor,

                                Washington, D.C.

                                  ----------

        The subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 2:53 p.m., in
    Room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building. Hon. Suzanne Bonamici
    [chairwoman of the subcommittee] presiding.
        Present: Representatives Bonamici, Grijalva, Fudge,
    Schrier, Hayes, Trone, Lee, Comer, Thompson, and Johnson.
        Also Present: Representatives Scott,Wild, Jayapal, Adams
    Foxx and Keller.
        Staff Present: Tylease Alli, Chief Clerk; Ilana Brunner,
    General Counsel; Carrie Hughes, Director of Health and Human
    Services; Ariel Jona, Staff Assistant; Stephanie Lalle, Deputy
    Communications Director; Jaria Martin, Clerk/Assistant to the
    Staff Director; Kevin McDermott, Senior Labor Policy Advisor;
    Richard Miller, Director of Labor Policy; Kota Mitzutani, Staff
    Writer; Max Moore, Office Aid; Janice Nsor, Oversight Counsel;
    Veronique Pluviose, Staff Director; Banyon Vassar, Deputy
    Director of Information Technology; Katelyn Walker, Counsel;
    Joshua Weisz, Communications Director; Rachel West, Senior
    Economic Policy Advisor; Courtney Butcher, Minority Director of
    Member Services and Coalitions; Dean Johnson, Minority Staff
    Assistant; Amy Raaf Jones, Director of Education and Human
    Resources Policy; Hannah Matesic, Minority Director of
    Operations; Audra McGeorge, Minority Communications Director;
    Jake Middlebrooks, Minority Professional Staff Member; Carlton
    Norwood, Minority Press Secretary; Chance Russell, Minority
    Legislative Assistant; and Mandy Schaumburg, Minority Chief
    Counsel and Deputy Director of Education Policy.
        Chairwoman BONAMICI. I note that a quorum is present. I
    note for the Subcommittee that Representative Davis of
    California, Representative Adams of North Carolina,
    Representative Jayapal of Washington, Representative Wild of
    Pennsylvania, Representative Omar of Minnesota, and
    Representative Keller of Pennsylvania are permitted to
    participate in today's hearing with the understanding that
    their questions will come only after all members of the
    Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Human Services on both sides
    of the aisle who are present have had an opportunity to
    question the witnesses.
        The Subcommittee is meeting today in an oversight hearing
    to hear testimony on examining the USDA's proposed cuts to free
    school meals.
        Pursuant to Committee Rule 7(c), opening statements are
    limited to the Chair and Ranking Member. This allows us to hear
    from our witness sooner and provides all members with adequate
    time to ask questions.
        I recognize myself now for the purpose of making an opening
    statement.
        Today we will examine a Department of Agriculture proposal
    that will eliminate automatic access to free school meals for
    close to one million children and threaten their food security.
        On July 23, the USDA proposed a new rule that will restrict
    eligibility for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program,
    or SNAP. On its own, the proposal will cut access to food
    assistance for about 3.1 million low income Americans, which
    will have significant consequences for individuals and families
    struggling to get by.
        In my home state of Oregon, about 16 percent of households
    will lose access to SNAP benefits as a result of this proposed
    rule. But as we will discuss today, the proposal will have
    additional consequences for low income children, many of whom
    count on school meals as their most consistent source of
    nutrition.
        Through a provision called categorical eligibility,
    children who are eligible for SNAP are automatically eligible
    for free school meals.
        According to the department's own analysis released late
    yesterday afternoon, its proposed changes to SNAP will cut
    automatic access to free school meals for close to one million
    children.
        Shockingly, the department failed to disclose this analysis
    when it originally published its proposal despite being
    required to do so.
        In fact, the only reason we originally knew of the
    consequences of the proposed SNAP rule, is that a member of the
    Committee staff asked the department directly on a briefing
    call about the effect on school meals.
        After waiting months for this analysis, we have now learned
    that the rule will be even worse for students and families than
    we originally understood and the department still has not fully
    accounted for the ripple effects of this proposal.
        Under the Community Eligibility Provision, nearly 2,000
    schools across the country provide free school meals to all of
    their students because more than 40 percent of their students
    participate in an anti-poverty program such as SNAP.
        Schools participating in Community Eligibility appreciate
    the simplification of the program, the reduction of paperwork,
    and importantly, the elimination of stigma among students.
        For schools currently just above the 40 percent threshold,
    the proposed rule very well could kick enough students off SNAP
    that the school would lose access to the Community Eligibility
    Provision.
        As a result, these schools will be forced to go through the
    burdensome process of asking low income families to fill out
    individual applications for free or reduced price school meals.
        We already know that without community eligibility, hungry
    children who would otherwise be eligible across the country are
    going without meals. And we now know that the department failed
    to account for the potential--this potential effect in its
    analysis.
        Inevitably, if this rule is implemented, many more low
    income students who are eligible for free or reduced priced
    school meals will not receive the food assistance they
    desperately need. That is nothing short of a preventable
    tragedy.
        To justify its proposed rule, the administration is
    pointing to a single case of one wealthy individual who
    intentionally manipulated the SNAP system and then the
    department argues that we must, quote, close loopholes.
        To be clear, we are not talking about wealthy kids taking
    advantage of the system. According to USDA's own analysis, 93
    percent of households that will lose eligibility for free
    school meals will still be eligible for reduced price school
    meals after filling out an individual application.
        These are children from poor families living just above the
    poverty line. It is not easy for these families. In fact, just
    last week I met with Family Promise, an organization that helps
    homeless families get back on their feet and regain
    independence.
        A tearful mother shared her story of trying to find
    employment that will cover rent which is already hard. This
    rule will only exacerbate the challenges for those who are
    struggling. The department is using a misleading claim to
    dismiss the real struggles of millions of families in dire need
    of food assistance.
        The reality is that this administration is going to be
    making more hungry children go without breakfast or lunch to
    pay for its nearly $2 trillion tax cut that overwhelmingly
    benefited corporations and the wealthy.
        The Trump Administration's proposed rule not only denies
    children automatic access to school meals, it denies them the
    ability to reach their potential. A large body of scientific
    research and basic common sense show that hungry children can't
    learn.
        The President himself recognized the importance of school
    lunch to our Nation's children when he declared this week
    National School Lunch Week. I note that it is hypocritical
    because at the same time the President acknowledges the
    critical role these meals play in the academic success of
    students, his administration is moving forward with a proposed
    rule that will limit access to these meals for almost a million
    children.
        At a time when 1 in 7 children are already food insecure,
    we should be doing more to prevent, so much more to prevent
    children--childhood hunger.
        Mr. Lipps, thank you again, Deputy Licks--Lipps, thank you
    again for being here for this important conversation. However,
    I do need to express my disappointment on two points.
        First, Committee staff pointed out to the department that
    your written testimony directly addressed a different Committee
    than the one you are before today.
        And it further does not address the effect of the proposed
    SNAP rule on school meals. Despite bringing that to your
    attention, you declined the opportunity to make changes to your
    written testimony and make it more responsive to the topic of
    today's hearing.
        Second, your department waited until yesterday afternoon,
    the afternoon before this hearing to release an analysis that
    the Committee has been requesting for months, and,
    unfortunately, you only intend to reopen the comment period for
    an additional two weeks which is woefully insufficient in light
    of how many people will be affected by this rule.
        I hope you will show respect to the Members of this
    Committee and the people we represent by addressing these
    concerns directly in your oral testimony and answers during
    today's hearing.
        I now recognize the distinguished Ranking Member for the
    purpose of making an opening statement.
        [The statement of Chairwoman Bonamici follows:]

     Prepared Statement of Hon. Suzanne Bonamici, Chairwoman, Subcommittee
                       on Civil Rights and Human Services

        Today we will examine a Department of Agriculture proposal that
    will eliminate automatic access to free school meals for close to one
    million children and threaten their food security.
        On July 23rd, USDA proposed a new rule that will restrict
    eligibility for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP.
    On its own, the proposal will cut access to food assistance for 3.1
    million low-income Americans, which will have significant consequences
    for individuals and families struggling to get by. In my home state of
    Oregon, 16 percent of households will lose access to SNAP benefits as a
    result of this proposed rule.
        But, as we will discuss today, the proposal will have additional
    consequences for low-income children, many of whom count on school
    meals as their most consistent source of nutrition.
        Through a provision called categorical eligibility, children who
    are eligible for SNAP are automatically eligible for free school meals.
    According to the Department's own analysis released late yesterday
    afternoon, its proposed changes to SNAP will cut automatic access to
    free school meals for close to one million children.
        Shockingly, the Department failed to disclose this analysis when it
    published its proposal, despite being required to do so. In fact, the
    only reason we originally knew the consequences of the proposed SNAP
    rule is that a member of the Committee staff asked the Department
    directly on a briefing call about the effect on school meals.
        After waiting months for this analysis, we now have learned that
    the rule will be even worse for students and families than we
    originally understood, and the Department still has not fully accounted
    for the ripple effects of its proposal.
        Under the Community Eligibility Provision, nearly 2,000 schools
    across the country provide free school meals to all their students
    because more than 40 percent of their students participate in an anti-
    poverty program, such as SNAP. Schools participating in Community
    Eligibility appreciate the simplification of the program, the reduction
    of paperwork, and, importantly, the elimination of stigma among
    students.
        For schools currently just above the 40 percent threshold, the
    proposed rule very well could kick enough students off SNAP that the
    school would lose access to the Community Eligibility Provision. As a
    result, these schools will be forced to go through the burdensome
    process of asking low-income families to fill out individual
    applications for free or reduced price school meals. We already know
    that, without community eligibility, hungry children who would
    otherwise be eligible across the country are going without meals. And
    we now know that the Department failed to account for the potential
    effect in its analysis.
        Inevitably, if this rule is implemented, many more low-income
    students who are eligible for free or reduced price school meals will
    not receive the food assistance they desperately need. That is nothing
    short of a preventable tragedy.
        To justify its proposed rule, the Administration is pointing to a
    single case of one wealthy individual who intentionally manipulated the
    SNAP system, and arguing that we must, quote, ``close loopholes.''
        To be clear, we are not talking about wealthy kids taking advantage
    of the system. According to USDA's own analysis, 93 percent of
    households that will lose eligibility for free school meals will still
    be eligible for reduced price school meals after filling out an
    individual application. These are children from poor families living
    just above the poverty line. It's not easy for these families. Just
    last week I met with Family Promise, an organization that helps
    homeless families get back on their feet and regain independence. A
    tearful mother shared her story of trying to find employment that will
    cover rent; it's already hard and this rule will only exacerbate the
    challenges for those who are struggling.
        The Department is using a misleading claim to dismiss the real
    struggles of millions of families in dire need of food assistance. The
    reality is that the Administration is going to be making more hungry
    children go without breakfast or lunch to pay for its nearly $2
    trillion tax cut that overwhelmingly benefited corporations and the
    wealthy.
        The Trump Administration's proposed rule not only denies children
    automatic access to school meals, it denies them the ability to reach
    their potential. A large body of scientific research and basic
    commonsense shows that hungry children can't learn. The President
    himself recognized the importance of school lunch to our nation's
    children when he declared this week National School Lunch Week. I note
    that it is hypocritical; at the same time the President acknowledges
    the critical role these meals play in the academic success of students,
    his Administration is moving forward with a proposed rule that will
    limit access to these meals for almost a million children. At a time
    when one in seven children are already food insecure, we should be
    doing so much more to prevent child hunger.
        Mr. Lipps, thank you again for being here for this important
    conversation; however, I also need to express my disappointment on two
    points. First, Committee staff pointed out to the Department that your
    written testimony directly addressed a different Committee than the one
    you are before today, and further it does not address the effect of the
    proposed SNAP rule on school meals. Despite bringing that to your
    attention, you declined the opportunity to make changes to your written
    testimony and make it more responsive to the topic of today's hearing.
        Second, your Department waited until yesterday afternoon to release
    an analysis that the Committee has been requesting for months, and,
    unfortunately, you only intend to reopen the comment period for two
    weeks. This is woefully insufficient in light of how many people will
    be affected by this rule. I hope you will show respect to Members of
    this Committee and the people we represent by addressing these concerns
    directly in your oral testimony and answers during today's hearing.
        Now, I will yield to the Ranking Member for the purpose of making
    an opening statement.
                                     ______

        Mr. COMER. Thank you. Education is a critical part of
    student success later in life and we know there is a
    correlation between food and healthy nutrition and the capacity
    of children to develop and learn. That is why Federal funds
    have been used to provide free or reduced priced school meals
    to students for more than 70 years.
        With this in mind, I think it is also appropriate to
    recognize that this week marks a celebration of national school
    lunch week. A week dedicated to acknowledging the benefits of
    the National School Lunch Program and promoting access to
    nutritionally-balanced meals for students across the country.
        Everyone in this room wants what is best for our Nation's
    school children. Unfortunately, my colleagues on the other side
    of the aisle are intent on painting the picture that this
    administration is eager to put school age children in harm's
    way and that is simply not the case.
        Today you will hear democrats wrongfully argue that the
    administrations rule will deny school children access to free
    meals. Their manipulation of the data may generate headlines
    and it certainly advances the Democrat's narrative but it is
    far from the truth.
        I am afraid my colleagues have missed the point of the
    USDA's rules and I would like to take a moment to set the
    record straight.
        All eligible children will continue to receive school
    meals. Let me repeat that. All eligible school children will
    continue to receive meals.
        Currently, eligibility loopholes allow states to make
    families receiving minimal Temporary Assistance for Needy
    Families or TANF benefits automatically eligible to participate
    in USDA's Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP.
        The purpose of TANF is to provide assistance to needy
    families to allow children to be cared for in their own homes
    and in parents' dependence on government benefits through work,
    promotion, and marriage.
        Yet for years the Federal government has allowed states to
    utilize Federal loopholes to virtually eliminate the income and
    asset requirements for SNAP. The expanded eligibility has
    included families with incomes that far exceed eligibility
    requirements.
        In fact, I am sure we have all heard by now the story of a
    millionaire living in Minnesota who was able to successfully
    enroll in the program. While this is likely not common, it is
    emblematic of a larger problem in these programs.
        So the administration issued the rule we are discussing
    today which is aimed at curtailing states from exploiting
    eligibility loopholes.
        The benefits offered to those in need should actually reach
    those in need. We have a responsibility to diligently and
    responsibly allocate taxpayer dollars.
        Too many in Congress find it way too easy to spend hard
    earned taxpayer dollars without promising accountability. And
    that is an insult to every citizen who has entrusted us with
    their representation. Taxpayer dollars should be used
    effectively, efficiently, and in accordance with the law.
        Committee Republicans believe that students who need free
    or reduced price lunches should be able to receive them.
    Period.
        Nothing in the proposed rule will change income eligibility
    thresholds in the child nutrition laws.
        USDA is taking comprehensive steps to ensure that benefits
    are provided effectively, efficiently and with integrity to
    those most in need, an effort that everyone on this Committee
    should be able to report. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        [The statement of Mr. Comer follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Hon. James Comer, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
                        Civil Rights and Human Services

        ``Education is a critical part of students' success later in life
    and we know there is a correlation between food and healthy nutrition
    and the capacity of children to develop and learn. That is why federal
    funds have been used to provide free or reduced-price school meals to
    students for more than 70 years. With this in mind, I think it is also
    appropriate to recognize that this week marks the celebration of
    National School Lunch Week - a week dedicated to acknowledging the
    benefits of the National School Lunch Program and promoting access to
    nutritionally- balanced meals for students across the country.
        Everyone in this room wants what is best for our nation's school
    children. Unfortunately, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
    are intent on painting the picture that this administration is eager to
    put school-aged children in harm's way; and this simply is not the
    case.
        Today, you will hear Democrats wrongfully argue that the
    administration's rule will deny school children access to free school
    meals. Their manipulation of the data may generate headlines, and it
    certainly advances the Democrats' narrative, but it is far from the
    truth.
        I'm afraid my colleagues have missed the point of USDA's rule, and
    I'd like to take a moment to set the record straight.
        All eligible children will continue to receive school meals. Let me
    repeat that. All eligible children will continue to receive school
    meals.
        Currently, eligibility loopholes allow states to make families
    receiving minimal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
    benefits automatically eligible to participate in USDA's Supplemental
    Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). The purpose of TANF is to `provide
    assistance to needy families to allow children to be cared for in their
    own homes, and end parents' dependence on government benefits through
    work promotion and marriage.'
        Yet for years the federal government has allowed states to utilize
    federal loopholes to virtually eliminate the income and asset
    requirements for SNAP. The expanded eligibility has included families
    with incomes that far exceed eligibility requirements. In fact, I am
    sure we have all heard by now the story of a millionaire living in
    Minnesota was able to successfully enroll in the program. While this is
    likely not common, it is emblematic of a larger problem in these
    programs. So, the administration issued the rule we are discussing
    today, which is aimed at curtailing states from exploiting an
    eligibility loophole.
        The benefits offered to those in need should actually reach those
    in need. We have a responsibility to diligently and responsibly
    allocate taxpayer dollars. Too many in Congress find it way too easy to
    spend hard-earned taxpayer dollars without promising accountability.
    That is an insult to every citizen who has entrusted us with their
    representation. Taxpayer dollars should be used effectively,
    efficiently, and in accordance with the law.
        Committee Republicans believe that students who need free or
    reduced-priced lunches should be able to receive them. Period. Nothing
    in the proposed rule will change income eligibility thresholds in the
    child nutrition laws. USDA is taking comprehensive steps to ensure that
    benefits are provided effectively, efficiently, and with integrity to
    those most in need - an effort that everyone on this Committee should
    be able to support.''
                                     ______

        Chairwoman BONAMICI. Without objection, all other members
    who wish to insert written statements into the record may do so
    by submitting them to the Committee Clerk electronically in
    Microsoft Word format by 5 p.m. on October 29, 2019. I will now
    introduce our witness.
        Brandon Lipps is the Deputy Undersecretary of the Food,
    Nutrition and Consumer Services, FNCS at the U.S. Department of
    Agriculture.
        Previously Mr. Lipps served as administrator of the food
    and nutrition service and also acted--and also as Acting Deputy
    Undersecretary of the FNCS from July 2017 to August of 2019.
    Pursuant to Committee Rule 7(d), the witness will please stand
    and raise his right hand.
        [Witness sworn.]
        Chairwoman BONAMICI. Let the record show that the witness
    answered in the affirmative.
        We appreciate the witness for being here today and we look
    forward to your testimony. Let me remind the witness that we
    have read your written statement and it will appear in full in
    the hearing record.
        Pursuant to Committee Rule 7(d) and Committee practice, you
    are asked to limit your oral presentation to a 5 minute summary
    of your written statement.
        Before you begin your testimony, please remember to press
    the button on the microphone in front of you so it will turn on
    and the Members can hear you. And as you being to speak, the
    light in front of you will turn green. After 4 minutes, the
    light will turn yellow to signal that you have 1 minute
    remaining. When the light turns red, your 5 minutes have
    expired and we ask that you please wrap up.
        We will let the witness make his presentation before we
    move to member questions and when answering a question, please
    remember to once again turn your microphone on.
        I now recognize Deputy Undersecretary Lipps.

     TESTIMONY OF BRANDON LIPPS, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY FOR FOOD,
         NUTRITION, AND CONSUMER SERVICES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
                              AGRICULTURE

        Mr. LIPPS. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member
    Comer, and Members of the Committee for the opportunity to
    discuss the administration's priorities and answer any
    questions you may have with regard to child nutrition
    reauthorization.
        I am Brandon Lipps, the Deputy Under Secretary for Food,
    Nutrition, and Consumer Services. FNS is responsible for
    administering America's nutrition assistance programs which
    leverage our Nation's agricultural abundance to ensure every
    American has access to wholesome, nutritious food, even when
    they face challenging circumstances.
        This Committee, as noticed by the Chairwoman's opening
    statement has expressed interest in USDA's recent regulatory
    actions related to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
    Program. Yesterday, the Food and Nutrition Service released an
    informational analysis on the proposed rule to refine
    categorical eligibility requirements based on receipt of
    Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, commonly known as TANF
    benefits under SNAP.
        The new informational analysis estimates that for children
    and households found to have income and asset above SNAP's
    statutory eligibility, an estimated 96 percent of those
    children will remain eligible for free or reduced priced meals
    if this proposed rule becomes final in its current form.
        For the remaining estimated 40,000 children or one tenth of
    one percent of all children receiving school lunch, their
    family income exceeds the congressionally set NSLP statutory
    eligibility standard of 185 percent of the poverty line.
        We have also submitted a Federal Register notice which will
    appear later this week indicating we will also be reopening the
    comment period for 14 days to provide the public an opportunity
    to review and provide comment on this document as part of the
    rule making record.
        While I cannot discuss the content of the final rule or the
    comments we have received before they are published, I would
    like to take a moment to talk about the department's objectives
    in this area.
        As you know, Americans are a generous people who believe in
    helping those who have fallen on hard times. But we all agree
    that those who can provide for themselves should.
        SNAP and our other programs are critical to millions of
    Americans and we should be proud to have the abundance to come
    alongside them in hard times. But in order to do that, we have
    to be good stewards of every dollar.
        For far too long, negative press has weakened American's
    confidence and important programs you have charged us with
    administering at the Food and Nutrition Service.
        The stories are sometimes so egregious they appear surely
    to be only rumors but are unfortunately verified as factual,
    jeopardizing the future of these important programs for
    millions of families.
        Let's first look at broad based categorical eligibility.
    There was recently a story about a millionaire and previously
    there have been stories about other millionaires who have
    accessed the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program through
    this loophole.
        The loophole was first exposed by Congress own oversight
    authority, the General Accountability Office in a 2012 report
    as having quote a negative effect on SNAP program integrity. As
    some states are designating SNAP applicants as categorically
    eligible without providing them the service required to make
    that determination.
        The loophole received greater scrutiny in a 2015 Office of
    Inspector General of USDA report that described how one state
    conferred eligibility by providing recipients with quote a
    brochure for social services. And the OIG went on to note that
    the state only mailed the brochure to applicants after it
    conferred the eligibility for SNAP.
        Next let's look at families living across the state line
    from each other, just miles apart. We have learned that one
    family is receiving two and a half times less in SNAP benefits
    simply because one state uses an inflated and inaccurate
    utility deduction.
        What began as a series of observations from front line
    staff at the Food and Nutrition Service about potential
    irregularities then became a full blown USDA study initiated in
    2014.
        We have since confirmed these irregularities because many
    states cannot cite the sources of their base calculation for
    the deduction or the year in which they were established. This
    not only creates an uneven patchwork for the administration of
    a Federal program but it is morally unfair to those receiving
    unequal benefits.
        And finally, with the lowest unemployment rate in 50 years,
    we have employers across this country who cannot find enough
    workers. Yet states are continuing to wave congressionally
    mandated work requirements. We have states currently exempting
    counties with unemployment rates as low as 3.6 percent who were
    claiming lack of sufficient jobs in that county.
        Egregious program abuses such as these leave a dark cloud
    over this important program risking future support and
    reflecting negatively on participants who need access to the
    programs. Families on these programs and the taxpayers who fund
    them expect better from their government.
        We at USDA are dedicated to ensuring that these important
    programs are preserved for those in need and that they are
    administered equitably with integrity and within the
    eligibility standards that Congress has provided in the law. I
    remain committed to listening to and collaborating with all
    stakeholders, including each of you on this Committee. Working
    together, we can improve the lives of those who fall on hard
    times and come in contact with these programs.
        Thank you for having me and I am happy to answer any
    questions.
        [The statement of Mr. Lipps follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairwoman BONAMICI. Thank you for your testimony. Under
    Committee Rule 8(a) we will now question witnesses under the 5
    minute rule. As Chair I have decided to go first and then I
    will yield to the Ranking Member. We will then alternate
    between the parties.
        I now recognize myself for 5 minutes for the purpose of
    questions.
        Deputy Lipps, during a phone briefing with the House
    Committee on Education and Labor staff on July 22, days before
    the publication of the proposed rule, Pam Miller, the
    administrator of the USDA Food and Nutrition Service stated
    that the department estimated that more than 500,000 children
    would lose their automatic eligibility for free school meals as
    a result of the proposed rule.
        Is it correct that Ms. Miller provided Committee staff with
    this estimate of more than 500,000 children losing their
    automatic access to free school meals? And this is a yes or no
    question.
        Mr. LIPPS. Chairwoman, I was not on that call. Pam does not
    deny having that conversation. I can't tell you what the
    details of the conversation were.
        Chairwoman BONAMICI. Is there any reason to believe that
    she did not tell Committee staff that the estimate of more than
    500 children would lose their automatic access to school meals?
        Mr. LIPPS. I do not know.
        Chairwoman BONAMICI. Is it correct that the analysis that
    your department published on Regulations.gov late yesterday
    afternoon stated and I quote, as many as 982,000 children would
    no longer be directly certified for free school meals? Is that
    correct?
        Mr. LIPPS. When, if their families no longer meet the
    income and asset standards provided under SNAP, they will not
    be directly certified for school meals but continue to be
    eligible under the standards set in the child nutrition
    statute.
        Chairwoman BONAMICI. But does the analysis that you have
    published on Regulations.gov state as many as 982,000 children
    would no longer be directly certified for free school meals? Is
    that in the analysis that you published?
        Mr. LIPPS. That's correct. They would not be directly
    certified if their families did not meet the asset income test
    for SNAP.
        Chairwoman BONAMICI. So we have had a lot of conversations
    in this Committee about SNAP and school meals. The department
    also states in its analysis of households that will no longer
    be eligible for free school meals, 93 percent would only be
    eligible for reduced price meals if they applied. So they are
    actually losing access to free school meals, is that correct?
        Mr. LIPPS. Chairwoman, the income test for school meals are
    set in statute by the jurisdiction of this Committee and
    students whose family meet those standards will qualify for the
    application process if they are not directly certified through
    SNAP.
        Chairwoman BONAMICI. But is correct that 93 percent of
    those children would only be eligible for reduced priced meals
    if they apply? So they are losing access to free school meals,
    correct?
        Mr. LIPPS. There are multiple ways for children to enter
    the school nutrition program so I can't talk about those
    specific families for sure. But certainly for those who meet
    the income standards provided in statute they will qualify
    through the application process.
        Chairwoman BONAMICI. So we have--we have also had
    conversations in this Committee about the burden associated
    with filling out applications and it is not reasonable to
    assume that every child who is financially eligible will end up
    receiving the benefit they need to thrive, is that correct?
    There will be some children's whose parents or family members
    do not fill out an application, is that correct?
        Mr. LIPPS. Chairwoman, that is correct and the Agency and a
    number of groups take a lot of actions to help make sure the
    families are aware of their access and that they have the
    opportunity to fill those out and ensure that their children
    have access to those meals.
        Chairwoman BONAMICI. I understand. But there will be
    children whose parents do not fill out the forms or the
    application so there will be children who will not get--
        Mr. LIPPS. That may be true.
        Chairwoman BONAMICI. Yes. Section 6A3C of Executive Order
    12866, the regulatory planning and review requires
    administration to include in the regulatory impact analysis of
    a proposed rule all costs anticipated from a regulatory action
    including adverse effects on health.
        Why was the department's analysis of the effect of the
    proposed rule on school meals missing from the initial
    regulatory impact analysis?
        Mr. LIPPS. Chairwoman, it was not missing. The Agency
    conducted a proper regulatory impact analysis on this rule
    which makes changes to the, refine the categorical, broad based
    categorical eligibility in the SNAP program and considers all
    relevant regulatory impacts with regard to that. Regulatory
    impact analysis went through all proper clearance channels and
    was cleared as a proper regulatory impact analysis related to
    this.
        Chairwoman BONAMICI. But the original, just to clarify, the
    original regulatory impact analysis did not include the
    analysis that you revealed yesterday afternoon, is that
    correct?
        Mr. LIPPS. That's correct.
        Chairwoman BONAMICI. The Committee Chairman made multiple
    requests for that analysis since the rule was published in
    July. Why did the department wait until 5 p.m. the day before
    the hearing to provide the Committee and the American public
    with that analysis?
        Mr. LIPPS. Chairwoman, we provided this analysis as soon as
    it was available and ready. The Chairman requested that. The
    agency conducted the analysis, went through the proper
    clearance channels and was provided as quickly as possible.
        Chairwoman BONAMICI. Mr. Lipps, the department knows that
    nearly one million children will lose automatic access to free
    school meals as a result of this proposed rule. This
    information was not included in the initial RIA.
        So how had--can the department determine that 14 days is
    enough time for the public to meaningfully comment on this
    proposed rule?
        Mr. LIPPS. Chairwoman, we believe 14 days is sufficient
    time for the public to comment on this specific four page
    document. The record will be officially opened for 14 days.
        The notice was given yesterday and it won't officially
    publish until Friday so there will be some extra days in that
    as well. But we do believe that is sufficient time for people
    to comment on this--
        Chairwoman BONAMICI. Well, I know I share the concerns of
    many that is an insufficient time and the only reasonable
    conclusion I can draw is that the department left the
    information out to avoid public criticism. They know that this
    would be poorly received by the public.
        And additionally releasing the analysis at 5 p.m. on the
    day before the hearing makes it appear that the USDA was trying
    to thwart oversight. That concerns me. The USDA can and should
    be better for Americans, children, and families. And I now
    recognize the Ranking Member for the purpose of questioning the
    witness.
        Mr. COMER. Thank you. Secretary Lipps, I have a series of
    quick questions I want to ask so the record will be clear on
    this topic so please answer as briefly as possible. To begin
    with, the broad based categorical eligibility rule is a rule
    addressing a provision in the SNAP program, is that correct?
        Mr. LIPPS. That's correct.
        Mr. COMER. The impact analysis USDA completed on this SNAP
    rule was how the program impacted SNAP participation, is that
    correct?
        Mr. LIPPS. That's correct.
        Mr. COMER. Are the Child Nutrition Programs a part of the
    SNAP Program?
        Mr. LIPPS. No, sir.
        Mr. COMER. Because the Child Nutrition Programs are not
    part of the SNAP Program, USDA did not do an official analysis
    of any impact to those programs in the proposed rule, is that
    correct?
        Mr. LIPPS. That's correct.
        Mr. COMER. While no official analysis on the proposed rule
    was done in an off the record call to Congress your staff
    provided some back of the envelope calculations on that impact,
    is that correct?
        Mr. LIPPS. Yes, sir, I believe that's the call the
    Chairwoman was referring to. Yes, sir.
        Mr. COMER. But those calculations would not be included in
    any official analysis that would be published or put out by
    USDA at that, at this time, is that correct?
        Mr. LIPPS. Right.
        Mr. COMER. You have since published this information
    analysis, correct?
        Mr. LIPPS. Yes, sir.
        Mr. COMER. Can you please walk us through what the actual
    impact to child nutrition participation would likely be?
        Mr. LIPPS. Yes, sir. The informational analysis that we
    released yesterday showed that families who would not qualify
    for direct certification through SNAP because they do not meet
    the asset income test in the SNAP statute, will come into the
    child nutrition program though the income test that this
    Committee provides in statute.
        And of those children who are indirectly affected because
    their families no longer qualify for SNAP, 96 percent of them
    will continue to qualify for free or reduced price meals under
    the eligibility standards that you've set.
        Mr. COMER. A few other questions. Under the child nutrition
    laws, what are the eligibility requirements to receive free or
    reduced price meals?
        Mr. LIPPS. Free meals are provided to families whose income
    is under 130 percent of poverty level and reduced is provided
    for those between 130 and 185 percent of the poverty level.
        Mr. COMER. Are there any requirements in SNAP either in the
    statute or regulations that govern eligibility for free or
    reduced priced meals under the Child Nutrition Program?
        Mr. LIPPS. No, sir.
        Mr. COMER. Does the proposed BBCE rule make any changes to
    the eligibility requirement under the child nutrition law?
        Mr. LIPPS. It does not.
        Mr. COMER. Back to the child nutrition laws and regs. Is it
    clear to parents and school food authorities on how students
    can apply to receive free or reduced priced meals and does that
    include through direct certification or a categorical
    eligibility?
        Mr. LIPPS. Those standards are clear. The agency works with
    states and school districts and others to ensure that parents
    know the opportunities for their children to participate in
    those programs on a regular basis.
        Mr. COMER. Does USDA have any policy or plan to try to
    prevent eligibility student's from receiving free or reduced
    price meals?
        Mr. LIPPS. No, sir. We are trying to ensure that all of
    those do have access.
        Mr. COMER. Does that answer change if the BBCE proposed
    rule is finalized?
        Mr. LIPPS. It does not.
        Mr. COMER. Has USDA put out guidance and answered question
    on implementation of the Child Nutrition Programs to help
    schools ensure eligible students receive free or reduced price
    meals?
        Mr. LIPPS. Yes.
        Mr. COMER. All right. Well, thank you very much and, Madam
    Chairwoman, I yield back the balance of my time.
        Chairwoman BONAMICI. I now recognize Representative Fudge
    from Ohio for 5 minutes and, Mr. Lipps, will you please when
    you answer please make sure that your microphone is on and
    maybe get a little closer to the microphone. We are having
    trouble hearing you.
        Mr. LIPPS. I think it's on. Is this better?
        Chairwoman BONAMICI. Yes, that is better, thank you.
        Mr. LIPPS. I'll pull it up.
        Chairwoman BONAMICI. Ms. Fudge.
        Ms. FUDGE. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And if I might
    before I get into my questioning, Madam Chair, I would request
    unanimous consent to enter into the record three letters urging
    USDA to reconsider its proposed BBCE rule.
        Chairwoman BONAMICI. Without objection.
        Ms. FUDGE. Thank you very much. The first letter is dated
    October 2, 2019 and it is signed by all 55 members of the
    Congressional Black Caucus.
        The second letter is dated September 23, 2019 and it is
    signed by 24 attorneys general from across the country.
        And the third letter is dated today, from the Dairy Farmers
    of America. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Chairwoman BONAMICI. Without objection.
        Ms. FUDGE. Thank you. I, you know, Mr. Lipps, I had the
    opportunity to watch part of your testimony this morning at Ag
    Approps and determined that you were really very, very good at
    evasion. I am certainly hopeful that you will be more
    forthcoming this afternoon.
        And as I continue to hear this broken record about finding
    on person that scammed the system, I am so sick of it. So
    because one person scammed the system we are supposed to punish
    hungry kids.
        That makes absolutely no sense to me. Okay, do something
    with the one person. Don't punish all of these hungry children
    in this country or senior citizens because one person broke a
    rule. It is just ridiculous. And I am sick of hearing it. It is
    just like a broken record.
        I think that it is important for us to understand that this
    is not about scuff laws. This is about taking care of people in
    this country who are hungry.
        Now, Mr. Lipps, your proposal just from your own
    information will take food out of the mouths of three, more
    than three million working families, children, seniors and
    persons with disabilities.
        The proposal would impact elderly SNAP households, I am
    sure you are aware that approximately 13 percent of all SNAP
    households with elderly members will lose their benefits. I
    take hunger very, very seriously.
        I represent one of the poorest districts in the United
    States. Half of the children in the city of Cleveland are
    living in poverty according to U.S. census data. These kids
    often live in SNAP households and rely on the free nutritious
    meals provided by their local schools to succeed in their
    classrooms.
        Unfortunately for poor Americans, the administration's plan
    to cuts to SNAP do not end just with BBCE. To date, USDA has
    published a trio of cruel SNAP proposals that will strip
    critical food assistance away from millions of poor and working
    families.
        Do you know how many participants or households will lose
    their benefits if all three of these rules were to be finalized
    in their current form?
        Mr. LIPPS. Ms. Fudge, I don't know what the interaction on
    those is. You're correct about the 3.1 million on BBCE and
    there is an estimated 775 on the ABOD rule.
        Ms. FUDGE. Well, the numbers I have shows its going to be
    about 4 million people. 4 million. Does that sound reasonable?
        Mr. LIPPS. That's close.
        Ms. FUDGE. Okay. So at least we are on the same page there.
    So you think it is okay to put in place rules that would put 4
    million people off of SNAP?
        Mr. LIPPS. Representative, I think it is important that the
    Agency carries out the asset and income standards that Congress
    prescribes.
        There is a conversation to be had about whether those need
    to be changed to serve people differently, but they're provided
    in statute.
        Ms. FUDGE. So wait, wait, wait, back up. These are rules we
    are talking about. This isn't something Congress prescribed.
        Mr. LIPPS. That's correct.
        Ms. FUDGE. This is something the USDA prescribed.
        Mr. LIPPS. That's correct.
        Ms. FUDGE. So let us be clear.
        Mr. LIPPS. States have used this loophole to put people on
    the program who are outside the asset and income standards that
    Congress has prescribed.
        Ms. FUDGE. So you want to throw out the baby with the
    bathwater. Is that what you want to do?
        Mr. LIPPS. We are ensuring--
        Ms. FUDGE. Well, you have no control over these states?
        Mr. LIPPS. We are ensuring that there is integrity in the
    program by advancing this rule. Folks--
        Ms. FUDGE. Who allows the states to make these decisions?
    Us, right?
        Mr. LIPPS. You prescribe in statute what the asset and
    income--
        Ms. FUDGE. So they are only doing what we are allowing them
    to do.
        Mr. LIPPS. It's our job to ensure that the asset and income
    test that you prescribe are abided by in statute and that's
    what this rule does.
        Ms. FUDGE. Well, once again I would say, sir, that you all
    believe in states' rights when it is to your advantage and you
    don't when it is not.
        What is your position on states right?
        Mr. LIPPS. This rule is about ensuring that laws that you
    have asked are complied with--
        Ms. FUDGE. I didn't ask about the rules. I said what is
    your position on states' rights is my question.
        Mr. LIPPS. We believe that state flexibilities and some--
    and how these programs are administered can test possibilities
    to serve people better and there are opportunities where we do
    that.
        We do not believe that we should allow states to set
    separate income and asset standards other than what Congress
    has provided.
        Ms. FUDGE. That is duplicitous. I mean, do you--did you
    support it or don't you?
        Mr. LIPPS. You provide situations in which we can provide
    flexibility to states and you provided very clear income and
    asset standards and we are ensuring that those are complied
    with by refining how categorical eligibility is implemented in
    this program.
        Ms. FUDGE. Well, since you believe in states' rights I
    think this is much ado about nothing. Madam Chair, I yield
    back.
        Chairwoman BONAMICI. Thank you. I now recognize Mr.
    Thompson for 5 minutes.
        Mr. THOMPSON. Secretary Lipps, good to see you. Great to
    work with you. I appreciate your service, appreciate the
    service of Secretary Purdue.
        You know, this, despite the unfounded claims to the
    contrary by some of my friends, this is not about scam, those
    who are scamming. This is about program integrity. And food
    security should be the focus.
        I, as someone who chaired the Nutrition Subcommittee in the
    Agricultural Committee and worked on these very issues, issues
    that actually passed out of the House of Representatives, you
    know, we should be focused on ensuring that those who are truly
    in need are well served.
        Free for all despite not being eligible takes food from
    truly needy families and I would argue hungry children and that
    is just wrong.
        There is a finite number of dollars but we do have an
    obligation, I believe, to serve those who are experiencing food
    insecurity.
        But we are talking about using, taking money literally away
    from truly needy, financially needy families and perhaps and
    many of them hungry families and children, to make it free for
    all. That is just wrong.
        I want to discuss the BBCE rule and the data we have
    available. In addition to this Committee as you know, I serve
    on the Agricultural Committee and was very involved in the farm
    bill.
        As you know the House passed bill proposed more a robust
    data collection. I find it concerning that some of my
    colleagues opposed getting that information then but are now
    saying we should wait on this rule until we have more data.
        Now I am afraid they can't have it both ways. The evidence
    is clear. Three million individuals do not meet the basic
    eligibility requirements of SNAP.
        That is a textbook violation of program integrity
    regardless of how my colleagues spin it and have to be
    corrected to ensure that this program appropriately uses tax
    payer dollars and appropriately serves those who are truly in
    need.
        We should do that, we should do that at our best and if we
    are misusing the program, we don't have program integrity, we
    are actually taking resources away from those who are truly in
    need.
        Now, Mr. Lipps, is it correct in my understanding that this
    rule change will not impact individuals who are statutorily
    eligible for SNAP benefits?
        Mr. LIPPS. That's correct.
        Mr. THOMPSON. Am I further correct that if a family
    qualifies for SNAP, the children in that family will be
    directly certified to receive free meals in school?
        Mr. LIPPS. That continues to be the case.
        Mr. THOMPSON. And does anything in this proposed BBCE rule
    change the direct certification for school meals at all?
        Mr. LIPPS. No, sir.
        Mr. THOMPSON. Am I correct in saying that if we circulate
    and it would be an appropriate part of our packet here, as a
    Member of this Committee, and everyone got a SNAP application,
    SNAP brochure we will just say which will be the appropriate
    thing to do when we are talking about SNAP that because we
    have--that has been given to us and that would be in our pack,
    we would now--every Member of this Committee would be eligible
    under broad based categorical eligibility for the SNAP program.
        Mr. LIPPS. Mr. Thompson, that's precisely the issue that
    both the Government Accountability Office and the Office of
    Inspector General pointed out as the problem with broad based
    categorical eligibility.
        Mr. THOMPSON. And I think our income well goes well beyond
    eligibility. But that is one of the things that there is a
    program integrity issue. This is not about going after the
    millionaire or the scam.
        Yeah, we ought to do that, but this ought to be about
    really helping the kids and the families who are truly in need.
    Thank you, Mr. Lipps.
        Now while you are here, I have got to take the opportunity
    to discuss something else nutrition, child nutrition.
        As you may recall, the last time you were before our
    Committee, I discussed milk consumption in the Child Nutrition
    Programs and the importance of moving just to allow whole milk,
    not forcing it, not requiring it, but allowing whole milk in
    addition to other flexibilities recently enacted.
        I am curious if you have looked into the research on the
    nutritional benefits of whole milk?
        Mr. LIPPS. Mr. Thomson, the next time I come I'm going to
    bring a pint of milk instead of my water just for you.
        Mr. THOMPSON. Make it chocolate if you would, that is my
    favorite.
        Mr. LIPPS. I'm aware of the recent research in that area.
    As you know the dietary guidelines, Scientific Advisory
    Committee is currently operating and they will consider all of
    that evidence on the whole as they look to revise the dietary
    guidelines and advise if there is an update that should be made
    on the percentage of milk served in schools.
        Mr. THOMPSON. Great. Let me just finally and also like to
    know if you have any preliminary data on milk consumption now
    that we are into the school year and kids can access more milk
    varieties including one percent and flavor?
        Mr. LIPPS. We don't have any feedback on that immediately
    from a study, Mr. Thompson. But anecdotally certainly there are
    some children that enjoying milk with the new flexibilities.
        Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Chairwoman.
        Chairwoman LEE. Thank you. I now recognize Ms. Hayes for 5
    minutes.
        Ms. HAYES. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you, Mr.
    Lipps, for being here. The last time you were before this
    Committee, you said that you agreed that you did not like to
    see hungry children and you emphasized Secretary Purdue's
    pledge to do the right thing and feed everyone. Remember that?
        Mr. LIPPS. I remember that.
        Ms. HAYES. So I am just at a loss because without even
    reviewing the research that clearly demonstrates that good
    nutrition is vital to a child's development, any teacher can
    tell you that hungry kids don't learn.
        And you started out your testimony by saying those who can
    provide for themselves should. Should I remind you that
    children can't provide for themselves?
        Can I ask you if this is a program integrity issue, just to
    kind of switch gears, how many children did you say would
    remain protected if this rule is implemented?
        Mr. LIPPS. How many would remain--
        Ms. HAYES. I mean, the percentage.
        Mr. LIPPS. Remain eligible, 96 percent would remain
    eligible.
        Ms. HAYES. 96 percent. So this isn't a program where there
    was rampant misuse if you have already identified that 96
    percent of the people who would have access to it would still
    continue to use the program.
        So I am just curious as to why the U.S. Department of
    Agriculture would target children in this way? It is not like
    we are saying 4 percent of students are eligible and 96 percent
    are misusing it. It seems like the program is operating with
    integrity.
        Mr. LIPPS. Well, I'll have to point back to the fact that
    the rule is about integrity in the SNAP program. It has an
    indirect effect on the school meals program based on the
    linkages provided in statute.
        And that's why per the income test that Congress has
    provided in statute 96 percent of then will continue to be
    eligible.
        Ms. HAYES. Hungry kids don't care about income tests. So we
    have a responsibility as the stewards of these programs, if you
    will, to ensure that we are fixing the things that are broken
    and maintaining the things that are working and not just
    getting rid of everything arbitrarily.
        Because you keep telling the story about this millionaire
    who misused the system. I have a million stories about children
    with their heads on their desks who come in, who are packing
    lunches, friends are bringing in food, teachers are buying them
    things to take home over the weekend, who are staying after
    school because they have no home to go to.
        So if we want to go story for story, I have so many stories
    to tell you about what that looks like in the classroom. So it
    is just deeply concerning to me that of all the areas where we
    need work that targeting children at this time where food
    insecurity is identified as such a critical problem in our
    communities, that this is the direction that the department
    would want to go.
        Can you explain why the department--I am sorry. Did your
    department include potential effects on educators in your
    analysis of the proposed rules impact on school meal
    eligibility or consult any educators?
        Mr. LIPPS. There is not an analysis with regard to
    educators in the informational analysis that we released.
    Educators likely have commented in the record and we will
    consider those and respond to them as a process of dealing with
    the comments in the record.
        Ms. HAYES. I am just curious. I know you are extending the
    comment period. Why wasn't it opened initially for the full
    period so that you can get as much robust information as you
    could in order to make an informed decision?
        Mr. LIPPS. Are you talking about specifically with regard
    to this informational analysis?
        Ms. HAYES. Yes.
        Mr. LIPPS. The Agency conducted a regulatory impact
    analysis as it was required for the statute. It went through
    all appropriate clearance channels and was provided for public
    input for 60 days.
        The Chairman asked for this analysis and we have provided
    it and as such we are providing it to the public for the
    opportunity to comment.
        Ms. HAYES. So it was opened for 60 days for public comment?
        Mr. LIPPS. That is correct.
        Ms. HAYES. So in the event this rule is finalized, does
    your department have any plans to notify the families of the
    nearly 1 million children that will now have to fill out a
    form?
        Because in years past they would not have had to fill out a
    form so if they are unaware that now this is a requirement they
    may just miss it again just on a procedural standpoint.
        Mr. LIPPS. We work with--sorry.
        Ms. HAYES. Go ahead.
        Mr. LIPPS. We work with states and school districts every
    year to ensure that families have those communications and we
    will continue to do that as we move forward.
        Ms. HAYES. But all of your testimony kind of lends itself
    to the fact that you don't trust the states to be good stewards
    of these programs.
        Mr. LIPPS. I have not--
        Ms. HAYES. So would--my question is would the department,
    does the department have any plan to notify the families?
        Mr. LIPPS. Not directly. The department does not administer
    the program. Local school districts administer the program
    under the supervision of their state and we provide them
    technical assistance. We will continue to do that to ensure
    that everybody--
        Ms. HAYES. So the local school districts have the ability,
    the capacity, the autonomy to oversee the program?
        Mr. LIPPS. That's correct.
        Ms. HAYES. I am sorry?
        Mr. LIPPS. That's correct.
        Ms. HAYES. That is correct. That is what I thought you
    said. Thank you. Madam Chair, I yield back.
        Chairwoman LEE. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Grijalva for
    5 minutes.
        Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Lipps, you are
    arguing that you did not conduct the economic analysis of the
    rules impact on school needs and needs meals because you were
    not required to assess the impact on this population.
        However, last night your department issued this analysis.
    At what point did you acknowledge that you were--that you
    actually needed to assess the impact on school meals?
        Mr. LIPPS. Congressman, the regulatory impact analysis that
    accompanied the rule that was published in the Federal Register
    for comment was appropriately drafted and went through all
    appropriate clearance channels with regard to its effect on the
    program for which we were refining the integrity measures being
    the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
        This informational analysis was requested by the Chairman
    of this Committee and we are providing it to him and as such
    also providing it to the public in the record and opening the
    comment period on the specific issue for them to have an
    opportunity to comment.
        Mr. GRIJALVA. But further in your testimony to my colleague
    and in response, you just said that Ms. Miller provided our
    staff with the back of the envelope analysis on a staff call
    about the rule.
        So are you admitting that your department was aware that
    there would be a significant impact to the free school meals
    program but did not think it was necessary to do a more
    comprehensive analysis?
        Mr. LIPPS. The analysis that was provided with the rule was
    accurate and met all requirements for that standard and the
    information was provided to the Committee upon request.
        Mr. GRIJALVA. Well, you know, the administration proclaimed
    I believe this week to be national school lunch week and
    praising the success of the program that provides lunch to more
    than 29 million children nationwide, Mr. Lipps, each month.
        My question is if the administration believes that the
    national school lunch program is so successful, why are you
    proposing a rule that would remove nearly a million children
    from that program that provides not only nutrition but provides
    the setting for learning as well? So how do you reconcile those
    two?
        Mr. LIPPS. Congressman, it's important to reiterate that
    this Committee sets the eligibility standards for school meals.
    We do believe it is a wonderful program, has had great success.
    I enjoy getting to see that success when I am out on the
    ground.
        The rule that you reference is a rule with regard to
    refining the categorical eligibility in the SNAP program which
    has provided a loophole to the asset and income test that a
    committee of another jurisdiction has provided in statute.
        Mr. GRIJALVA. Okay. You know, Congress has in terms of the
    rule, Congress has repeatedly rejected efforts to eliminate the
    categorical eligibility option including as recently as the
    bipartisan 2018 Farm Bill was enacted last December.
        That has been the will and the consensus and negotiations
    that Congress has been involved with regard to this program.
    Yet your rule attempts to pulmogate a policy that has already
    been rejected by this Congress in terms of what happened with
    the Farm Bill.
        How do you reconcile that? That you are able to do what you
    want and regardless of what this Congress's opinion, feelings
    or will is?
        Mr. LIPPS. Congressman, the rule was stated in the Agency's
    work plan prior to consideration of the 2018 Farm Bill.
    Congress did not make changes with regard to the Agency's
    ability to refine broad based categorical eligibility to deal
    with the issues brought up in the GAO and OIG report. Congress
    was aware of that--
        Mr. GRIJALVA. You didn't think the rejection efforts to
    eliminate the categorical eligibility option was not a
    statement relative to your work plan?
        Mr. LIPPS. Congressman, Congress did not put in statute
    requirements for us not to move forward with this rule and did
    not change the asset and income test in statute and therefore
    we are moving forward with refining broad based categorical
    eligibility for those issues that we have talked about.
        Mr. GRIJALVA. And in my district, Mr. Lipps, 4,000 kids,
    just on the back of the envelope analysis as you did are going
    to be affected and affected in a very real way in our schools.
        And, you know, I don't know how we can reconcile telling
    these kids and I don't know whose families are struggling they
    should no longer have access to food while they're trying to
    learn each day.
        I, it's a contradiction, a contradiction that this Congress
    has rejected as late as December and it's a contradiction that
    you seem comfortable with. I yield back.
        Chairwoman LEE. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Trone for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. TRONE. Thank you, Madam Chair. Your department
    estimates nearly one million children will lose automatic
    access to free school meals with your proposed rule.
        But when SNAP participation rates go down, we also see a
    decrease in the Identified Student Percentage, the ISP, which
    is used to calculate the eligibility of the Community
    Eligibility Provision, CEP.
        This provision lets low income students in school district
    provide free meals for all students. All students. The ISP also
    determines the reimbursement rate from the Federal government
    when they participate in CEP.
        Decreasing those ISP rates therefore puts these schools at
    risk of losing their ability to participate in a CEP that is
    going to impact their financial bottom line.
        Do you know how many schools nationwide have ISP's between
    40 and 50 percent and therefore they are at risk of losing
    their ability to have free meals for all students because of
    this rule?
        Mr. LIPPS. Congressman, I don't have that exact number. We
    can get back to you. I will note that as you say, as the
    economy continues to improve and SNAP enrollment goes down,
    that does make this ISP percentage more difficult.
        When Congress put the CEP provision in the 2010 Act which
    is now expired, they tied the ISP percentage to direct
    certification on SNAP.
        That is a problem for schools as the economy improves and
    people come off of SNAP and may be an issue. If you want to
    look at that as you move forward with child nutrition
    reauthorization, the Agency is certainly willing to provide
    technical assistance on resolving that issue.
        Mr. TRONE. Well, we appreciate that. Well, the answer is
    roughly 2,000 schools. 2,000 schools are in that bracket when
    that ISP drops they are going to lose their ability to take
    care of all the students.
        So it doesn't appear the department considered or analyzed
    the effects of those schools that are near the 40 percent
    threshold. That is the key. 2,000 schools. It is going to be
    harder to feed our kids.
        Madam Chair, I would like to ask unanimous consent to enter
    into the record the Food Resource and Action Centers report
    entitled Community Eligibility: The Key to Hunger Free Schools.
    Madam Chair.
        Chairwoman SCHRIER. [Presiding] Thank you. I would like to
    recommend--to recognize--
        Mr. TRONE. Without objection.
        Chairwoman SCHRIER. Oh, sorry. Without objection.
        Mr. TRONE. That will work. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr.
    Lipps, I don't know how many schools nationwide, you know, if
    you don't know how many schools nationwide have ISPs between 40
    and 50 percent, does the department really know that there
    aren't more than a million students who would be affected when
    the entire school, whole school loses it, loses their CEP? Do
    you know those numbers?
        Mr. LIPPS. Congressman, as noted in this informational
    analysis, particularly when you talk about these programs that
    are linked to each other, these are based on estimates.
        The department has prepared a proper analysis which they
    believe to be accurate based on those estimates and put them
    out. It does also note that a number of those children affected
    may be in CEP schools and so the number may be significantly
    lower based on that as well.
        Mr. TRONE. Okay. We agree. The CEP also reduces paperwork
    for the schools and parents so they can spend their time on
    serving the students versus pushing the paperwork for the
    Department of Education.
        What was the administration doing to help parents of
    children who no longer receive free meals through CEP to apply
    for reduced price meals for their kids?
        Mr. LIPPS. Congressman, we have about 6 to 7 million
    children who come onto the school meals program through
    applications every year and the agency working with states and
    local school districts takes a number of actions to help
    simplify that process as best we can and to ensure that parents
    and families have all of the information they need to know the
    availability for access and to ensure that their children have
    access to--
        Mr. TRONE. Well, in my district, we have three schools who
    have lost their eligibility to implement CEP because the ISP
    changed. So we are going to be looking to see if you guys help
    those folks out with the paperwork burdens and if those kids
    can then quality for free school meals that they maybe won't
    ever get because of the paperwork that is overwhelming for the
    kids, their parents, and the teachers. Madam Chair, I would
    like to also ask unanimous consent to enter into the record
    three letters in opposition to the proposed rule from
    organizations that work to eliminate hunger in my district.
    Manna Food Center, Maryland Hunger Solutions and the Montgomery
    County Maryland Community Action Board.
        Chairwoman SCHRIER. Without objection.
        Mr. TRONE. Thank you. I simply can't understand why the
    administration would take in actions makes it harder for
    schools to be part of CEP. I can't support hungry kids and I am
    disappointed that you support hungry kids.
        Chairwoman SCHRIER. I would like to recognize Ms. Lee from
    Nevada.
        Ms. LEE. Thank you. Mr. Lipps, I would like to take a
    moment to clarify something for the record here. Committee--you
    and the Republicans on this Committee have said that 96 percent
    of children impacted by the proposed rule will still be able to
    participate in free and reduced priced meal. However, according
    to the departments analysis that we got last night, of the
    nearly 1 million children who will lose their direct
    certification for free school meals, only 45 percent will
    continue to be eligible for free school meals after they fill
    out the individual application and there is all sorts of issues
    with that.
        51 percent will only be eligible for reduced price meal.
    That is 30 cents for breakfast, 40 cents for lunch and 4
    percent will be--will have to pay the full price.
        Filling out individual applications as has been recognized
    earlier is a huge burden for schools and families that the
    department did not account for. And some eligible children
    undoubtedly will fall through the cracks. This is a preventable
    disaster.
        For the 51 percent of impacted students who will only be
    eligible for a reduced priced meal, paying 40 cents for lunch,
    30 cents for breakfast can be an enormous financial burden for
    families.
        Children who qualify for reduced price meals are between
    130 and 180 percent of the Federal poverty level. For a family
    of four, think about that. That is an income for a family of
    four between $33,455 and $51,000.
        In my home State of Nevada, approximately 1,300 students
    will lose their access to school meals because of the community
    elimination of the CEP.
        And, you know, this is at a time when we are wrestling with
    increasing, widening income disparities and we have so many
    families and children struggling with food insecurity.
        In your written testimony, you stated that you have talked
    about the importance the USDA gives to good customer service
    and that comes from listening to customers. So I want to start
    off and ask you several yes and no questions.
        First of all, did you consider any input from any of these
    families before the administration released this rule
    essentially eliminating their eligibility?
        Mr. LIPPS. Congresswoman, its important to recall that this
    rule is about a refinement of SNAP broad based categorical
    elements--
        Ms. LEE. I understand.
        Mr. LIPPS.--not with regards to school meals.
        Ms. LEE. Did you consider any input from these families?
        Mr. LIPPS. We drafted this rule based on the needs of the
    SNAP programs and not child nutrition standards which this
    Committee sits in statute.
        Ms. LEE. Okay. So that is a no. Does the department think
    that children of these families do not need free school meals?
        Mr. LIPPS. Congresswoman, this Committee decides who should
    get free and reduced priced meals. It is our job to carry that
    out. There is a discussion to be had if you all want to change
    those as part of child nutrition reauthorization. This agency--
        Ms. LEE. Well, your change--okay.
        Mr. LIPPS.--is happy to prepare technical assistance to
    assist you with that.
        Ms. LEE. But let me clarify. You are changing the rule
    because of a report of one person who qualified for SNAP that
    was wealthy thereby affecting millions of children across this
    country.
        Does the department think that children in these families
    whose income are between this do not need free school meals?
        Mr. LIPPS. Congresswoman, again, Congress makes that
    decision on who qualifies for free school meals and reduced
    price school meals and we carry that out.
        Ms. LEE. Okay. With nearly 1 million, again this was just
    updated, losing access, do you think it is reasonable to
    conclude that child food insecurity will increase or decrease?
        Mr. LIPPS. Congresswoman, 96 percent of those continue to
    qualify under the standards provided in statute and we don't
    know what those numbers are going to show.
        Ms. LEE. Well, I understand but I think I want to--as I
    clarified earlier, 51 percent of impacted students now may have
    to pay. Other students will fall through the cracks because of
    not knowing about the application or not properly filling it
    out.
        So my question, yes or no. Do you believe it will increase
    food insecurity for children?
        Mr. LIPPS. I don't have an answer to that Congresswoman, at
    this time. We can certainly look at that as we move forward and
    if you think those standards need to be different, we will
    certainly be available to provide technical assistance on
    changing them.
        Ms. LEE. Okay. Well, thank you. I am--before I end, I would
    like to enter into the record a letter from Abby Leibman,
    president of Mazon clarifying the impacts that this rule change
    will have on senior, veterans, Native Americans, and rural
    Americans.
        Chairwoman SCHRIER. Without objection. I would like to
    recognize myself for 5 minutes.
        So it turns out that today is world food day, a day meant
    to highlight the ongoing fight against hunger.
        And it seems particularly ironic that today we are talking
    about a rule, a proposed rule, that would increase the number
    of hungry children across this country, rather than lower it.
    In my home State of Washington, there are 15,633 students who
    stand to lose access to free school meals as a result of the
    proposed rule about categorical eligibility. And in my district
    in central Washington, there are over 3,300 students that stand
    to lose their free lunch status.
        There are many schools in my district with poverty rates
    over 40 percent. That is nearly two and a half times the
    National average of about 16 percent.
        And according to the superintendent of the Manson School
    District, many of these students eat two meals a day at school
    which are often the only well-balanced, nutritious meals they
    get. Many also participate in the summer meal program. Further,
    the U.S. Census Bureau's Supplemental Poverty Measure shows
    that the school meals program and SNAP measurably reduce the
    rate of poverty.
        Now, I know, Mr. Lipps, from your previous appearance
    before our committee, that you care about the wellbeing of
    children and so could you help me understand why the department
    is choosing to move forward with a rule that will clearly
    reduce access to nutrition programs that have been shown to
    reduce poverty?
        Mr. LIPPS. Sure. Congresswoman, I don't know if you were
    here earlier for all of my comments on the fact that this is a
    rule with regard to refining categorical eligibility in the
    SNAP program.
        Congress sets the asset and income tests for that program.
    It's our job to ensure that they're abided by and that's what
    this rule does.
        There is an indirect effect on the school meals program and
    those families have access to that school meals program via the
    income standards that this Committee sets in statute and by
    which 7 million other school children come under the program
    every year.
        Chairwoman SCHRIER. So let us just be clear that by ridding
    of this categorical eligibility, people still qualify but they
    will have to go through a whole bunch more hurdles, lots more
    paperwork.
        In fact, I don't have the numbers in front of me--well,
    maybe I do but we would need in Washington State to hire 165
    additional personnel just in order to take care of the
    increased paperwork.
        So this sounds like we are shifting our spending away from
    spending on food for children and towards spending on
    bureaucracy. That seems like the wrong direction to be going.
        Mr. LIPPS. Do you have a question on that?
        Chairwoman SCHRIER. I am contesting what you said. Do you
    have any comments about that? Because I will go on.
        Mr. LIPPS. Congresswoman, again, I would say this Committee
    sets those asset and--those income tests for families to
    participate in school meals. There are 7 million who come in
    via this access point every year.
        If Congress feels that is not the right way for kids to
    come on the meals, they should deal with that in child
    nutrition reauthorization and we will be at the table to
    provide technical assistance on helping move forward in that
    direction.
        Chairwoman SCHRIER. I wanted to add as a pediatrician, I am
    concerned that taking away school meals and this is from a half
    a million kids nationwide and I talked about the numbers in my
    state, will also decrease their academic performance and result
    in probably worse behavior in school.
        Research shows that children who participate in Federal
    nutrition programs do better in math and reading and are more
    likely to graduate and ultimately that means they will
    contribute to our economy.
        Did you consider the impact of this rule on academic
    outcomes and the, and our economy later?
        Mr. LIPPS. The SNAP rule considered impacts with regard to
    administration of the SNAP program and went through all proper
    clearance channels.
        Chairwoman SCHRIER. Okay. And did you consider the
    administrative burden and the transfer of dollars to
    bureaucracy and to paperwork and hiring additional personnel
    instead of putting food into children's bodies?
        Mr. LIPPS. I do believe there is a consideration of the
    administrative side of this issue in the recently released
    informational analysis.
        Chairwoman SCHRIER. Okay. I am going to conclude because I
    have a few more seconds. Just with a general principle, that
    there seems to be an underlying effort to take people who are
    already on the edge in this country and make life just a little
    bit tougher for them.
        SNAP costs $1.40 per meal. We are a wealthy country. There
    are plenty of places that we could make cuts that would not so
    adversely affect people in this country who can least afford
    that kind of trauma and difficulty in their lives.
        These are programs that pull families out of poverty and
    that make hungry people not hungry. I would like to thank you
    for your attendance today.
        Mr. LIPPS. Thank you.
        Chairwoman SCHRIER. And I would like to recognize Dr. Foxx
    for 5 minutes.
        Mrs. FOXX. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and, Mr. Lipps,
    thank you so much for being here today. We really appreciate
    your coming back and being with the Subcommittee. I support
    efficiency in programs. I support improving program integrity.
    I support reducing the burden on grantees, states and others
    when participating in or implementing Federal programs. And
    with all that, I support ensuring the benefits offered to those
    in need actually reach those in need. Taxpayers give the
    Federal government their hard earned money and we owe it to
    them to help make sure the money is used effectively,
    efficiently and in accordance with the law.
        I believe the proposed BBCE rule will ensure that
    hardworking tax payer dollars are spent in accordance with the
    law. Do you agree with that, Mr. Lipps?
        Mr. LIPPS. Yes, ma'am.
        Mrs. FOXX. I believe the proposed BBCE rule will impact
    categorical eligibility within programs because individuals not
    eligible, not eligible, will no longer be able to slide in to
    eligibility for all programs by subverting the income
    requirements and being considered a participant in another
    program.
        With that said, any family that actually qualifies for SNAP
    will continue to do so when this rule becomes final. Is that
    correct, Mr. Lipps?
        Mr. LIPPS. Absolutely.
        Mrs. FOXX. And therefore, the families that are eligible
    for SNAP will be directly certified for free school meals when
    this rule is finalized. Is that correct?
        Mr. LIPPS. That's correct.
        Mrs. FOXX. So despite hearing that an outrageous number of
    students will lose access to free meals that is hardly close to
    the actual impact of this proposed reel--rule. Is that correct,
    Mr. Lipps?
        Mr. LIPPS. That's correct.
        Mrs. FOXX. Once the loophole in SNAP is closed, the
    families that qualify for free or reduced price meals will
    remain the same, correct?
        Mr. LIPPS. Correct.
        Mrs. FOXX. If your family earns 130 percent or below the
    Federal poverty limit, your children qualify for free meals.
    Nothing changes.
        If your family earns between 130 percent and 185 percent of
    the Federal poverty limit, your children qualify for reduced
    price meals. Nothing changes. Is that correct, Mr. Lipps?
        Mr. LIPPS. Yes. Yes, ma'am.
        Mrs. FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Lipps. Mr. Lipps, several of my
    colleagues have implied or directly stated that the policy is
    targeted--targeting children and encouraging increased hungry
    children.
        That does not seem to be the purpose of this rule to me
    based on your testimony, based on the rule, based on the
    clarifications you have made.
        Is there anything that has been discussed today at this
    hearing that you'd like to clarify or reemphasize for the
    record?
        Is there anything you feel is mischaracterized that you
    would suggest we look at more data to better understand how all
    of these programs interact?
        Mr. LIPPS. Congresswoman, I appreciate that. Hunger is an
    important issue. We all agree on that. I know that that's
    important to you, and I have heard your statements on that with
    regard to your background and we all care about those issues.
        Our job at USDA, you have tasked us to make, to ensure that
    there is integrity in all of these programs. Broad based
    categorical eligibility rule is an integrity rule dealing with
    loopholes in the SNAP program to ensure the asset income test
    and posed by the Committee of jurisdiction are complied with.
        This Committee has jurisdiction over school meals programs.
    You set the income tests for these programs and we ensure that
    they are carried out in the best manner possible to ensure that
    all of those children have access.
        We do that today. We will continue to do that tomorrow. And
    I appreciate the opportunity to clarify that.
        I would also say with regard to interaction in the
    programs, there are a lot of programs that interact with the
    families that we serve at this point, particularly as families
    move from free to reduced priced meals.
        There is always a conversation to be had about ways to
    better serve them and cause those programs to better interact
    to help those families along.
        This agency is always willing to be at the table to help
    provide technical assistance on those discussions should this
    Committee choose to move forward in those.
        Mrs. FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Lipps. I don't believe anybody in
    the Agriculture Department wants to put children in a position
    where they are, there are more children who are hungry in this
    country.
        But I do think we want program integrity and we want the
    adults who are utilizing this program inappropriately to be
    held accountable. Thank you, Mr. Lipps. Thank you, Madam
    Chairwoman.
        Mr. LIPPS. Thank you.
        Chairwoman SCHRIER. I would like to recognize my colleague
    Mr. Johnson from South Dakota for 5 minutes.
        Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Lipps, thanks for
    being here today and I want to thank you for your passion
    toward hunger and making sure we do what we can to reduce
    hunger in this country.
        This is a personal topic for me. I, like a number of my
    colleagues on both sides of the aisle in Congress, utilized
    SNAP benefits as a part of my family when I was growing up. And
    we need a social safety net in this country for those people
    who truly need it.
        So thank you for your efforts to make sure that safety net
    is intact and effective.
        I want to--and I know you have been asked these questions
    before but I just want to make sure that logically I understand
    how this flows.
        Mr. LIPPS. Sure.
        Mr. JOHNSON. So the income and asset test for SNAP, that
    has been set by Congress, is that right?
        Mr. LIPPS. That's correct.
        Mr. JOHNSON. And at the time that those standards were set,
    Congress indicated I believe that their motivation, their
    intent was to make sure that these resources were targeted
    toward the most needy families. Is that right?
        Mr. LIPPS. That is my understanding.
        Mr. JOHNSON. So the law in search of administrative
    efficiency, did provide for some categorical eligibility that
    meant that people who qualified for some programs like TANF
    which is quite difficult to qualify for, that they would be
    considered eligible for programs that are a little easier to
    qualify for like SNAP. Is that right?
        Mr. LIPPS. That's correct, yes, sir.
        Mr. JOHNSON. And it is my understanding that a number of
    states have really strained that categorical eligibility in all
    likelihood beyond what Congress intended into what we are now
    calling broad based categorical eligibility.
        And that it is not just possible but is happening today
    that people who otherwise wouldn't qualify under the
    Congressional established asset and income test are now
    receiving benefits that they have not, they are no, they don't
    legitimately are qualified for, right?
        Mr. LIPPS. Yes, sir, that's correct. And as I have noted
    before, this--that's the exact issue that the Government
    Accountability Office and Office of Inspector General report
    pointed out that are occurring in masse in a number of states.
        Mr. JOHNSON. So I want to make sure that I have the facts
    on this right because it was hard for me to believe the first
    time I heard it.
        There can be at the state level, someone who is deemed
    qualified or receives--forget even substantial TANF benefits,
    but perhaps a TANF funded information that then because they
    have received quote a TANF benefit that there are some states
    who then are without any income or any asset test are allowing
    those individuals to be eligible for SNAP. Am I understating
    that right?
        Mr. LIPPS. You're correct, yes, sir.
        Mr. JOHNSON. Those families then are eligible for the
    school lunch program even though in some instances there has
    been no income and no asset test conducted?
        Mr. LIPPS. That's correct.
        Mr. JOHNSON. So then in that environment, we are doing a
    pretty poor job of targeting these important and scarce
    resources toward the families that need it the most, is that
    right?
        Mr. LIPPS. Yes, sir.
        Mr. JOHNSON. What is the--I know you have said it before,
    Mr. Lipps, but what is the goal for the agency, for the
    department with this proposed rule?
        Mr. LIPPS. Congressman, the goal is to ensure that the
    eligibility standards that Congress sets for these programs are
    abided by and that the recipients on these programs know that
    there is integrity in this program and that there is not a dark
    cloud of new stories about these egregious behaviors that cover
    these programs.
        Congress provides an asset and income test for SNAP. This
    Committee provides income tests for school meals. We are
    ensuring those are abided by and we are not changing those. We
    don't have the authority to change that at the agency.
        Mr. JOHNSON. Okay. So I am going to provide a message to
    families, needy families, and I want you to, after I give that
    message, I want you to tell me in what ways it is flawed.
        My message to those needy families would be sir, madam, if
    your family meets the income and asset test for food stamps,
    after this rule goes through, you will still be eligible?
        Mr. LIPPS. Correct.
        Mr. JOHNSON. For food stamps.
        Mr. LIPPS. Correct.
        Mr. JOHNSON. Sir, madam, if there are people who have made
    you scared that the government is going to take away your
    otherwise legitimately, eligible for benefits, you should not
    be scared. If you qualify you will be eligible for those
    benefits. Is that right?
        Mr. LIPPS. That's correct.
        Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Lipps, thank you for making this very
    clear for me. I appreciate it.
        Chairwoman SCHRIER. Thank you. I would now like to
    recognize our Chairman, Mr. Scott.
        Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Lipps, for being here.
    Let me just follow through, follow up on a question that was
    just asked. There are a million people who would be not
    categorically eligible for free lunch. Is that right?
        Mr. LIPPS. There are a million children who will no longer
    be directly certified for school lunch after the, if their
    families don't meet the asset and income test in SNAP.
        Mr. SCOTT. Okay. Now as I understand, 45 percent would
    still be eligible for free lunch, for free meals, right?
        Mr. LIPPS. Yes, sir.
        Mr. SCOTT. If they apply.
        Mr. LIPPS. Correct.
        Mr. SCOTT. And what does the evidence show as to the
    percentage of those who are eligible that end up slipping
    through the cracks in the application process?
        Mr. LIPPS. Mr. Chairman, I don't have data on that today. I
    can see what we have and get back to you on that. There are 7
    million children in this country who come in through the
    application process every year based on the income test that
    this Committee has provided in statute.
        Mr. SCOTT. Well, you recognize somebody slips through the
    cracks and this, this whole discussion doesn't make a lot of
    sense unless we know how many--because if all 450,000 get
    through the application process, we are just talking about a
    little inconvenience but nobody is denied nutrition.
        But if a significant portion can't get through the process,
    then we have a problem, isn't that right?
        Mr. LIPPS. Mr. Chairman, I would offer to you the same as I
    did earlier. If this Committee is interested at looking at
    other avenues to move children on to this program, other than
    the asset--than the income test provided in statute, that
    agency will stand ready to provide technical assistance on that
    as you--
        Mr. SCOTT. Well, we thought we had--
        Mr. LIPPS.--reauthorization.
        Mr. SCOTT.--before you, before this rule popped up.
        Mr. LIPPS. You--
        Mr. SCOTT. 450,000 were categorically eligible.
        Mr. LIPPS. Direct certification will continue to occur.
    Categorical eligibility between TANF and SNAP will continue to
    occur. They will occur--they will work in the manner that they
    were designed at the time of their--
        Mr. SCOTT. Except that they are not categorically eligible.
    They have to go through the application process and we don't
    know how many we are going to lose in that process. 510,000
    would be eligible for reduced price and if they apply is that
    right?
        Mr. LIPPS. Yes, sir that is the method for their entrance
    in the program described in the--
        Mr. SCOTT. And we don't--
        Mr. LIPPS.--statute.
        Mr. SCOTT.--know how many of those will lose eligibility--
    will lose the benefit because they don't get through the
    process, is that right?
        Mr. LIPPS. I don't have an estimate on that.
        Mr. SCOTT. Okay. And 40,000 will lose eligibility all
    together.
        Mr. LIPPS. Families who do not meet the income test
    prescribed by this Committee in statute will not qualify for
    free or reduced priced meals.
        Mr. SCOTT. Well, yeah, but, I mean, we are not talking
    about rich people. We are talking about people who would, who
    are eligible for, you know, between 185 and 200 percent of
    poverty. I mean, it is just a little, that is what we are
    talking about, right?
        Mr. LIPPS. Well, its families anywhere over 195 percent to
    poverty level
        Mr. SCOTT. Right.
        Mr. LIPPS. And again, if Congress wants to change that we
    will participate in technical assistance to help make that
    happen.
        Mr. SCOTT. And what is the asset level that will be
    imposed?
        Mr. LIPPS. There is no asset test in school meals program.
        Mr. SCOTT. What is the asset in SNAP?
        Mr. LIPPS. The asset test in SNAP Congress has set a $2,250
    limit for assets in SNAP program.
        Mr. SCOTT. Okay. Can you, in your written testimony you
    mentioned the online purchasing pilot program.
        Mr. LIPPS. Yes, sir.
        Mr. SCOTT. Can you explain what affect that has on customer
    service?
        Mr. LIPPS. Sure. I think that program will provide a great
    opportunity to ensure that SNAP recipients have the same
    avenues to purchase their groceries as many of us others do.
    That pilot launched in New York and we are seeing great success
    there but we are being cautious to ensure that--
        Mr. SCOTT. What does success mean?
        Mr. LIPPS.--there is integrity both in the, on the SNAP
    side of the program but also for the recipients.
        Success means that recipients are able to purchase food and
    have it delivered to their home with integrity and that we are
    on a path to expand that so that more individuals may
    participate in it.
        Mr. SCOTT. And can you describe the SNAP employment and
    training program?
        Mr. LIPPS. Sure. The SNAP employment and training program
    is a wonderful program that the Agriculture Committee has given
    to FNS and to states who administer the program to provide
    opportunities for SNAP recipients to train for jobs that will
    advance their economic mobility.
        We have wonderful stories from around the country of
    individuals who participated in that program. I recently met
    with a formerly incarcerated individual who was estranged from
    his family who went through that program and is now running a
    moving company very successfully and has reunited with his
    program because of the time he spent in that employment and
    training opportunity.
        States, some states are doing a great job on that. We are
    working to make sure that all states are doing a great job on
    that and expanding those opportunities.
        Mr. SCOTT. Can you describe a little bit about what kind of
    training opportunities are available under that program?
        Mr. LIPPS. Sure. There are lots of different opportunities
    out there. Everything from culinary to wood working, Women in
    nontraditional jobs, truck driving, met with some individuals
    who were learning to code. So they're all across the spectrum
    but we are ensuring that our providers are making--
        Mr. SCOTT. And who runs the training programs?
        Mr. LIPPS. The training programs are run by the states
    through partners and we are working to--with states to ensure
    that they're selecting partners who are providing people skills
    that will provide them success in long term employment.
        Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Chairwoman SCHRIER. Thank you. I would like to recognize my
    colleague, Ms. Jayapal from Washington. Oh, excuse me. Ms.
    Wild.
        Ms. WILD. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Lipps, first I want
    to ask you a question on behalf of one of my colleagues, Susan
    Davis who isn't here right now because she's at another
    committee hearing.
        She is a member of the Armed Services Committee and has
    asked me to ask you about the effect or the potential effect of
    these cuts on military families.
        I will tell you I was an Air Force brat myself, moved
    around from assignment to assignment with my family my entire
    childhood and I know full well the struggles of military
    families.
        And often, they receive housing allowance adjustments that
    artificially increase their income which could very well put
    many members of the military in the category of people who will
    no longer qualify for SNAP benefits and correspondingly their
    children for free lunches.
        Have any provisions been made by the agency or the
    administration to address these concerns of military families?
        Mr. LIPPS. Congresswoman, we don't have statutory authority
    to treat them differently. I'm aware of the basic housing
    allowance issue and I know that Members of Congress are aware
    of that and should they want to work on that issue again the
    agency will be happy to provide technical assistance--
        Ms. WILD. So the answer to that is no.
        Mr. LIPPS.--to address that.
        Ms. WILD. Okay. Mr. Lipps, it is estimated that 12 percent
    of households in Pennsylvania which is where I am from would
    lose their SNAP benefits as a result of this proposed rule.
        In my home, the Lehigh Valley of Pennsylvania, 50 percent
    of the children are eligible to receive free school meals. Many
    children would lose their access to school meals as a result of
    this rule. It risks their health and their wellbeing and it is
    imperative the USDA is transparent with the public about how
    the rule will harm children and families.
        And yet, on numerous occasions when Chairman Scott has sent
    letters to the department or had his staff request
    documentation of the department's analysis of the proposed
    rules impact on school meals, he was met with resistance.
        We are talking about a single document in a phone call with
    Committee staff and USDA Assistant Secretary Ken Barbic on
    October 7th.
        The Committee again requested that this document be made
    available to the Committee in advance of our hearing no later
    than October 11 and yet, we didn't get this information until
    late yesterday afternoon even though the information has been
    available since the rule was published in July. Can you account
    for that?
        Mr. LIPPS. Yes, Congresswoman. I talked about this earlier.
    This informational analysis did not exist at the time of that
    phone call. We provided the best information that we had.
        We have since produced the analysis and provided it both to
    the Chairman and to the public as quickly as we could.
        Ms. WILD. When did the informational analysis become
    available?
        Mr. LIPPS. It became analysis for publication yesterday
    when we released it.
        Ms. WILD. That wasn't my question. When did the analysis
    become available?
        Mr. LIPPS. It became available yesterday. I'm not sure I
    understand what your question is.
        Ms. WILD. Well, you said for publication. Was there some
    sort of process?
        Mr. LIPPS. We have a clearance process for all the
    documents that come out of the agency.
        Ms. WILD. So when was the information made available to the
    agency? Not when was the process--
        Mr. LIPPS. Well, the agency--
        Ms. WILD.--gone through.
        Mr. LIPPS. Sorry for interrupting. The agency created the
    document so the analysis was run after the request from the
    Chairman.
        Ms. WILD. Now, Mr. Lipps, when my colleague Mrs. Lee asked
    you a question a little while ago, you responded that Congress
    sets the eligibility rules.
        And yet Congress also established broad based categorical
    eligibility in the 2008 Farm Bill so that more children could
    be eligible for free school meals.
        And yet the department is not implementing the broad based
    categorical eligibility as dictated by Congress, is it?
        Mr. LIPPS. Congresswoman, I'm not sure that's accurate.
    Congress created categorical eligibility which will remain
    after our rule is implemented. Broad based categorical
    eligibility was implemented by the states and this agency and
    not by Congress.
        We will continue to allow categorical eligibility which is
    prescribed in statute.
        Ms. WILD. Well, during the 2018 Farm Bill reauthorization,
    House Republicans included a provision to gut SNAP broad based
    categorical eligibility in their bill. That proposal was
    stripped from the version of the bill signed into law.
        But now the department is proposing changes to categorical
    eligibility that would be substantially more harmful than those
    changes that Congress rejected in the 2018 Farm Bill
    authorization. Isn't that true?
        Mr. LIPPS. The department proposed these changes prior to
    consideration of the 2018 Farm Bill. Congress took no action
    with regard to the intent of the agency to move forward with
    that and the agency continues to move forward to address
    integrity issues that have been called out by the Government
    Accountability Office, the Office of Inspector General and
    continue to create negative news media reports on a very
    important program.
        Ms. WILD. Thank you.
        Chairwoman SCHRIER. I would like to recognize my colleague,
    Ms. Jayapal from Washington State for 5 minutes.
        Ms. JAYAPAL. Thank you, Madam Chair, and, Mr. Lipps, thank
    you for being here. Let me just be clear. Last year Congress
    passed the 2018 Farm Bill which expressly preserved broad based
    categorical eligibility for SNAP benefits, rejecting the
    proposal that my colleague Ms. Wild talked about, a proposed
    cut.
        And the bill received the most votes of any farm bill in
    the history. 369 votes, only 47 people voted against it. So I
    consider this rule with its lack of process and transparency a
    complete end run around Congress.
        And here is what I can't figure out. I can't figure out why
    the administration is pushing forward a proposal that takes
    away nutrition assistance from extremely low-income families. I
    don't think that is what the vast majority of the American
    people want.
        This Trump Administration rule is cruel to hungry kids who
    need our help for food. We are not talking about other things,
    we are talking about food. Basic nutrition assistance.
        So, Mr. Lipps, can you tell me roughly what 130 percent of
    Federal poverty level is because that is the qualification here
    we are talking about?
        Mr. LIPPS. Sure. It depends on the number of family
    members, Congresswoman.
        Ms. JAYAPAL. Okay. So I am going to say it is about
    $21,000.
        Mr. LIPPS. Sounds right.
        Ms. JAYAPAL. And I am using the generally accepted
    statistic. In my home State of Washington, our minimum wage is
    $12 an hour because we have very strong worker protections and
    a great state legislature.
        If you are working full time, that comes out to just under
    $25,000 a year which is above the threshold for eligibility for
    SNAP benefits and thus for free school meals.
        Your agency has acknowledged in the past that the typical
    family will spend more than half of that amount, $13,000 on
    child-related costs alone.
        Is it the goal of the administration to take away free
    school meals for families just over 130 percent of the poverty
    level?
        Mr. LIPPS. Congresswoman, I'm not sure you were here
    earlier when we talked about the objection--
        Ms. JAYAPAL. Actually I have been here for most of the
    hearing, Mr. Lipps. I think I have heard your answers. I am
    going to ask you the question again.
        Is it the goal of your agency to take away free school
    meals for families just over 130 percent of the poverty level?
        Mr. LIPPS. Let me tell you our objectives because that's
    not it. Congress sets that 130 percent level in statute. The
    agency does not set it. We do not have the ability to change
    that.
        Ms. JAYAPAL. You are changing a rule that states have
    implemented, that will have impact on decisions that states
    have made across the country that Congress has made clear we
    want to preserve that ability for states to do this so that
    hungry kids can get food.
        So I am just going to ask you one more time and it is a yes
    or no question. Is it the goal of the administration to take
    away free school meals for families just over 130 percent of
    the poverty line?
        Mr. LIPPS. No.
        Ms. JAYAPAL. Okay. Great. Well, then I would suggest
    pulling back on this rule. Since July this Committee has been
    asking for an analysis of how your proposed rule would impact
    school meals.
        I have heard the arguments of when you released this. They
    don't really make sense to me frankly. 20, less than 24 hours
    before the hearing you provide us with this analysis.
        Can you tell us by your own estimation how much money does
    the administration save by cutting off 1 million children from
    free school meals as you have proposed?
        Mr. LIPPS. Congresswoman, as we noted, we--the estimate is
    that 96 percent of those students will continue to qualify for
    free or reduced priced meals--
        Ms. JAYAPAL. How much does it cost? How much money--
        Mr. LIPPS.--so there is not an estimate of--
        Ms. JAYAPAL.--will the administration save?
        Mr. LIPPS.--of savings.
        Ms. JAYAPAL. How much?
        Mr. LIPPS. The estimate suggests that 96 percent of those
    will continue to qualify so there would note be a savings
    associated with them not receiving it.
        Ms. JAYAPAL. Let me tell you what the estimate is. It is
    $270 million over five years based on the data. So you are
    right.
        Now let us look at the costs. How much has USDA estimated
    administrative costs will rise as a result of your proposed
    rule?
        Mr. LIPPS. I don't know that offhand, Congresswoman.
        Ms. JAYAPAL. Well, let me tell you what it is, Deputy
    Undersecretary Lipps.
        Mr. LIPPS. Sure.
        Ms. JAYAPAL. I wish you did know this. It is your agency
    and your department and your rule.
        The administration estimated $2 billion over 5 years in the
    proposed rule. So the overhead costs of the program overall
    will go up by $2 billion by your own estimation.
        And as you write in the proposed rule released last night,
    this is a quote. Does not account for potential state and local
    administrative costs incurred due to collecting and processing
    household applications for children no longer categorically
    eligible.
        Mr. Lipps, setting aside administrative costs, can you tell
    me how $270 million over 5 years compares to the CBO's estimate
    of the total cost of the Republican tax bill that was passed in
    2017?
        Mr. LIPPS. Congresswoman, I would note that the costs that
    you noted earlier with regard to the regulatory impact analysis
    of the rule and not this informational analysis.
        Ms. JAYAPAL. Do you know how the $270 million over 5 years
    compares to the CBO's estimate of the total cost of the
    Republican tax bill passed in 2017?
        Mr. LIPPS. I'm not an expert on that, Congresswoman.
        Ms. JAYAPAL. Well, let me tell you, my time has expired.
    CBO estimated the cost of the tax bill to be $1.9 trillion over
    10 years, Mr. Lipps. Thank you very much. I yield back, Madam
    Chair.
        Chairwoman SCHRIER. Thank you. I would like to recognize my
    colleague Mr. Keller from Pennsylvania for 5 minutes.
        Mr. KELLER. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Deputy
    Secretary Lipps for being here. I know this has been asked many
    times so please bear with me but I just want to make sure that
    it is correct for the record.
        And that is it is my understanding or let me just ask this
    to make the record clear. Is there any attempt by the USDA to
    limit access to benefits by qualified individuals in other--
    excuse me, in either the SNAP or school meal program?
        Mr. LIPPS. No, sir.
        Mr. KELLER. There is not. Because I look at the title here
    on the thing before I got the Subcommittee it says examining
    the USDA's proposed cuts to the free school meals. That is what
    it says on our paper.
        So you don't currently or the rules will not change any
    eligibility for any SNAP or school meal program?
        Mr. LIPPS. That's correct.
        Mr. KELLER. That is set by Congress?
        Mr. LIPPS. Yes, sir.
        Mr. KELLER. Okay. So when I look at this, the WIC programs
    and we are in school nutrition, child nutrition and WIC program
    was last reauthorized in 2010, is that correct?
        Mr. LIPPS. That's correct.
        Mr. KELLER. That is correct. Okay. This is the thing that I
    want to say and this is coming from an individual, I am not
    going to tell a story about people I represent or anecdotal
    stories.
        This is going to be a story about a kid that lived it. And
    I am going to tell you it is not fun to be hungry as a child. I
    had that childhood.
        And, you know, when we look at that there is nobody that
    wants to make or have anybody be hungry. I can't imagine what
    my parents went through knowing that their children were
    hungry. So to say that the administration or anybody else wants
    to change those guidelines, I think is just outrageous.
        So looking at this, you know, we are having a debate here
    on taking the Committee's valuable time on a proposed SNAP
    program which falls under the jurisdiction of the Agriculture
    Committees, is that correct?
        Mr. LIPPS. Yes, sir.
        Mr. KELLER. So our jurisdiction in this Committee would be
    for the school nutrition, the school lunch programs and so
    forth, correct?
        Mr. LIPPS. Correct.
        Mr. KELLER. So I would suggest to my colleagues rather than
    trying to prescribe motives or ascribe motive to what the
    administration is trying to do to make sure things are more
    equitable and the help is getting to where it needs to go, if
    we don't agree with the guidelines and think more people need
    help, then I would charge this Committee with looking into
    having hearings on what we should be doing to change those
    guidelines. Because if we were to change the guidelines, you
    would enforce those new guidelines?
        Mr. LIPPS. Yes, sir, without a doubt.
        Mr. KELLER. Okay. So again, the administration is not
    concerned with what the guidelines are or trying to eliminate
    anybody from getting help that needs help.
        Mr. LIPPS. That's correct.
        Mr. KELLER. Okay. So again I just want to say this one more
    time. If we are concerned about that, which we all should be
    making sure that people get the help they need, we as Americans
    want to do that.
        So I would say to this Committee, let's spend our time
    having hearings on what we should be doing to make sure those
    guidelines are reviewed and the people that get the help get
    the help rather than trying to attribute some kind of negative
    motive to somebody that is just trying to do the job Congress
    gave them to do. So I yield back.
        Mr. LIPPS. Thank you.
        Chairwoman SCHRIER. As a point of privilege, I want to
    clarify that the impact on the school meal program is within
    the jurisdiction of this Committee.
        And I recognize Dr. Adams from North Carolina for 5
    minutes.
        Ms. ADAMS. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for--to the
    witness today for your testimony.
        The administration is circumventing congressional intent
    which was made clear in the 2018 Farm Bill to roll back
    categorical eligibility and take food assistance away from
    children, families, veterans, disabled, and older Americans.
        More than 98,000 North Carolinians, including 38--35,000
    North Carolina children would lose food assistance and school
    meals if this flexibility is eliminated.
        Mecklenburg County, my district, we have more than 10,000
    people, almost half of which are children who would lose access
    to food assistance and that is without counting for the
    children at risk of losing lunch and breakfast due to the
    impact of this rule on the community eligibility provision. So,
    Mr. Lipps, the families and children that your proposal would
    take away, take food away from, are very low income, making
    ends meet on as little as $28,000 for a family of three.
        One of the best resources that a family could hope to rely
    on when their wages are so low is a little savings for an
    emergency like when the car breaks down or their child needs to
    go to the doctor, wouldn't you agree with that?
        Mr. LIPPS. Yes, ma'am.
        Ms. ADAMS. So but this rule wouldn't just penalize families
    if they receive a modest raise of $1 per hour in a low wage
    job. It would penalize them for saving even a few dollars for
    that kind of emergency.
        So my question, in fact the administration's own estimates
    show that about half of the households who would lose SNAP
    under this rule would do so as a result of the so called asset
    test not the income test. Isn't that right?
        Mr. LIPPS. Yes, ma'am, that's correct.
        Ms. ADAMS. Okay. So the 1.7 million households who would
    lose SNAP are nearly evenly split between those that failed the
    Federal SNAP income test and those that fail the Federal
    resource test.
        So this would mean that most families wouldn't save more
    than $2,250 without jeopardizing their children's access to
    school meals. So how does this rule then help families save for
    their children's future when they are forced to choose between
    saving for tomorrow or making sure that their kids have enough
    to eat today?
        Mr. LIPPS. Congresswoman, I appreciate your passion for
    these programs and I assure you that we share that. I
    acknowledged the issues that you raise.
        As we have talked about earlier, Congress sets those asset
    tests in the statute. It's an important discussion. I know that
    raising those was considered in the 2018 Farm Bill and not
    adopted.
        But it is an important discussion and if the committee of
    jurisdiction wants to look at modifying those, the agency is
    certainly willing to provide technical assistance on doing
    that.
        Ms. ADAMS. But you, would you make any recommendations
    without the Committee? I mean, we have passed the Farm Bill. I
    had the opportunity to sit on the Committee which I am Vice
    Chair of that Committee. But also in terms of settling that
    bill, so what would you say to that?
        Mr. LIPPS. Congresswoman, I can't alone endorse new policy
    but I will say as a part of that process that the
    administration issued a statement of administrative policy in
    support of the bill that made a number of changes including
    those that raised the asset test as noting that how these
    programs intersect with the individuals that you are talking
    about who often do struggle is very important to ensure that we
    give them the resources that they need to move forward.
        Ms. ADAMS. Okay. Madam Chair, I would like to enter 2
    letters into the record. One from the National Education
    Association and 23 faith based organizations. I would like to
    enter those for the record.
        Chairwoman SCHRIER. Without objection.
        Ms. ADAMS. Thank you. And, Madam Chair, I will yield back
    the balance of my time.
        Mr. LIPPS. Thank you.
        Chairwoman SCHRIER. Seeing as there are no more questions,
    I want to remind my colleagues that pursuant to, oh, excuse me.
        I want to remind my colleagues that pursuant to Committee
    practice, materials for submission for the hearing record must
    be submitted to the Committee Clerk within 14 days following
    the last day of the hearing, preferably in Microsoft Word
    format.
        The materials submitted must address the subject matter of
    the hearing. Only a Member of the Committee or an invited
    witness may submit materials for inclusion in the hearing
    record. Documents are limited to 50 pages each. Documents
    longer than 50 pages will be incorporated into the record via
    an internet link that you must provide to the Committee Clerk
    within the required timeframe but please recognize that years
    from now that link may no longer work.
        Again, I want to thank Mr. Lipps for his participation
    today. What we have heard is very valuable. Members of this
    Committee may have additional questions for you and we ask you,
    Mr. Lipps, to please respond to those questions in writing. The
    hearing record will be held open for 14 days in order to
    receive those responses.
        I remind my colleagues that pursuant to Committee practice,
    witness questions for the hearing must be submitted to the
    Majority Committee staff or Committee Clerk within 7 days. The
    questions submitted must address the subject of the hearing.
        I now recognize the distinguished Ranking Member Mr. Comer
    for his closing statement.
        Mr. COMER. Thank you. And thank you, Mr. Lipps, for coming
    here today. I understand it has been a very long day for you
    and I appreciate your time and patience in answering all of our
    questions.
        Mr. LIPPS. Thank you.
        Mr. COMER. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify the
    impact of this proposed rule and highlight its benefits to the
    tax payers and program participants even though the proposed
    BBCE rule falls under the Agriculture Committees jurisdiction.
        I believe the rule will strengthen integrity in the SNAP
    program by closing an unintended loophole that has allowed some
    states to extend food stamp eligibility to millions of people
    who do not qualify while taking away resources meant for the
    truly needy.
        My colleagues have criticized the rule and cited the impact
    on school meal programs as one reason they oppose. However, as
    many of my colleagues have discussed today and you have
    confirmed, under this rule no child who statutorily qualifies
    for a free or reduced price meal will lose access to their
    meal.
        If my colleagues are interested in exploring who actually
    qualifies for a free or reduced price lunch, we are happy to
    engage in a conversation around the reauthorization of the
    child nutrition programs.
        So the proposed changes in the rule will help prevent fraud
    and abuse within the SNAP program, fraud that cost tax payers
    nearly $64 billion in 2019 and not prevent one eligible child
    from receiving a school meal. That sounds like a good policy to
    me and something we should all support.
        Before I yield, I ask unanimous consent for two letters to
    be submitted to the record. They are both comments that were
    submitted to USDA on the proposed BBCE rule.
        Chairwoman SCHRIER. Without objection.
        Mr. COMER. Thank you. And I yield back.
        Chairwoman SCHRIER. Thank you. I now recognize myself for
    the purpose of making my closing statement.
        Mr. Lipps, thank you again for being here to discuss the
    USDA's proposed changes to SNAP eligibility and free school
    meals.
        As we discussed, the departments proposed rule will have
    a--will have devastating consequences for millions of our
    Nation's children and families.
        The departments own analysis found that the proposed rule
    will bar nearly a million children from qualifying
    automatically for free school meals that they need to be
    healthy.
        When children are hungry, they cannot learn and grow and at
    a time when millions of children do not have reliable access to
    food, this proposed SNAP rule will only exacerbate our Nation's
    food insecurity crisis.
        Mr. Lipps, as I did during your last appearance before this
    Committee, I urge you to recommit fulfilling the Food and
    Nutrition Services mission to increase food security and reduce
    hunger by providing children and low income people access to
    nutritious food.
        The only sensible step forward is to rescind this proposal
    and preserve access to automatic free school meals for nearly a
    million children.
        We owe it to the next generation to make sure they are
    prepared to learn and can reach their full potential.
        If there is no further business, I would like to wish our
    counsel, Janice Nsor, a happy birthday.
        And without objection the Subcommittee stands adjourned.
        Mr. LIPPS. Thank you.
        [Additional submissions by Chairwoman Bonamici follow:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        [Additional submissions by Mr. Comer follow:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        [Additional submissions by Ms. Fudge follow:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        [Additional submissions by Ms. Hayes follow:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        [Additional submissions by Mrs. Lee follow:]

     [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        [Additional submissions by Mr. Thompson follow:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        FNS Quality Control Process for SNAP Error Rate: https://
    www.oversight.gov/sites/default/files/oig-reports/27601-0002-
    41.pdf

        [Additional submissions by Mr. Trone follow:]

     [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        [Questions submitted for the record and their responses
    follow:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        [Whereupon, at 4:36 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]