    [House Hearing, 117 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                   MEMBER DAY
    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                            COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   ----------

                                  MAY 18, 2021

                                   ----------

                                Serial No. 117-6

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture
                             agriculture.house.gov

                                  __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    47-138 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2022

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE

                         DAVID SCOTT, Georgia, Chairman

    JIM COSTA, California                GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania,
    JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts     Ranking Minority Member
    FILEMON VELA, Texas                  AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia
    ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina, Vice  ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD,
    Chair                                Arkansas
    ABIGAIL DAVIS SPANBERGER, Virginia   SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee
    JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut            VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri
    ANTONIO DELGADO, New York            DOUG LaMALFA, California
    BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois              RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois
    CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine               RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia
    GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN,      DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina
    Northern Mariana Islands             TRENT KELLY, Mississippi
    ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire         DON BACON, Nebraska
    CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois               DUSTY JOHNSON, South Dakota
    SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York       JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana
    STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands   JIM HAGEDORN, Minnesota
    TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona              CHRIS JACOBS, New York
    SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California        TROY BALDERSON, Ohio
    RO KHANNA, California                MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas
    AL LAWSON, Jr., Florida              TRACEY MANN, Kansas
    J. LUIS CORREA, California           RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa
    ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota               MARY E. MILLER, Illinois
    JOSH HARDER, California              BARRY MOORE, Alabama
    CYNTHIA AXNE, Iowa                   KAT CAMMACK, Florida
    KIM SCHRIER, Washington              MICHELLE FISCHBACH, Minnesota
    JIMMY PANETTA, California            JULIA LETLOW, Louisiana
    ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
    SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia

                                     ______

                          Anne Simmons, Staff Director

                     Parish Braden, Minority Staff Director

                                      (ii)

                                 C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Scott, Hon. David, a Representative in Congress from Georgia,
      opening statement..............................................     1
        Prepared statement...........................................     2
    Thompson, Hon. Glenn, a Representative in Congress from
      Pennsylvania, opening statement................................     2

                                    Members

    Baird, Hon. James R., a Representative in Congress from Indiana..     3
        Prepared statement...........................................     5
    Hinson, Hon. Ashley, a Representative in Congress from Iowa......     6
        Prepared statement...........................................     8
    Gonzalez-Colon, Hon. Jenniffer, a Resident Commissioner in
      Congress from Puerto Rico......................................     9
        Prepared statement...........................................    10
    Feenstra, Hon. Randy, a Representative in Congress from Iowa.....    11
        Prepared statement...........................................    12
    Johnson, Hon. Dusty, a Representative in Congress from South
      Dakota.........................................................    13
        Prepared statement...........................................    15
        Submitted report.............................................   409
    Westerman, Hon. Bruce, a Representative in Congress from Arkansas    16
        Prepared statement...........................................    17
    Malliotakis, Hon. Nicole, a Representative in Congress from New
      York...........................................................    19
        Prepared statement...........................................    20
    Kahele, Hon. Kaiali`i, a Representative in Congress from Hawaii..    21
        Prepared statement...........................................    22
    Lawson, Jr., Hon. Al, a Representative in Congress from Florida..    23
        Prepared statement...........................................    24
        Submitted report.............................................   421
    Jackson, Hon. Ronny, a Representative in Congress from Texas.....    26
        Prepared statement...........................................    27
    Arrington, Hon. Jodey C., a Representative in Congress from
      Texas, submitted letter........................................    31
    Cohen, Hon. Steve, a Representative in Congress from Tennessee,
      submitted letter...............................................    32
    Estes, Hon. Ron, a Representative in Congress from Kansas,
      submitted statement............................................    33
    Good, Hon. Bob, a Representative in Congress from Virginia,
      submitted statement............................................    33
    Neguse, Hon. Joe, a Representative in Congress from Colorado,
      submitted statement............................................    34
    Pallone, Jr., Hon. Frank, a Representative in Congress from New
      Jersey, submitted letter.......................................    35
    Perry, Hon. Scott, a Representative in Congress from
      Pennsylvania, submitted statement..............................    37
    Pfluger, Hon. August, a Representative in Congress from Texas,
      submitted letter...............................................    38
    Sablan, Hon. Gregorio Kilili Camacho, a Delegate in Congress from
      Northern Mariana Islands, submitted statement..................    39
    San Nicolas, Hon. Michael F. Q., a Delegate in Congress from
      Guam, submitted statement......................................    40

                             Submitted Legislation

    H.R. 8489, Price Reform In Cattle Economics Act (PRICE Act)......    64
    H.R. 421, Assuring You Uniform Dietary Assistance (AYUDA) Act of
      2021 (AYUDA Act)...............................................    89
    H.R. 1162, 21st Century Conservation Corps Act...................    92
    H.R. 1363, Sustainable Agriculture Research Act..................   165
    H.R. 1692, Rehabilitating Economic Success Through Overcoming
      Rural Emergencies Act (RESTORE Act)............................   168
    H.R. 2011, Wise Investment in Children Act of 2021 (WIC Act of
      2021)..........................................................   171
    H.R. 2099, Secure Rural Schools Reauthorization Act of 2021......   179
    H.R. 2241, Civilian Climate Corps Act of 2021....................   189
    H.R. 2477, Urban Forests Act of 2021.............................   201
    H.R. 2500, Forest Technology Enhancements for Conservation and
      Habitat Improvement Act (Forest TECH Improvement Act)..........   213
    H.R. 2518, Producing Responsible Energy and Conservation
      Incentives and Solutions for the Environment Act (PRECISE Act).   216
    H.R. 2562, Solving Our Shortages for Seedlings Act (SOS for
      Seedlings Act).................................................   224
    H.R. 2581, Biochar Innovations and Opportunities for
      Conservation, Health, and Advancements in Research Act of 2021
      (BIOCHAR Act of 2021)..........................................   229
    H.R. 2639, Trillion Trees Act....................................   240
    H.R. 2698, Aluminum Pricing Examination Act (APEX Act)...........   346
    H.R. 2837, Making Essentials Available and Lawful (MEAL) Act of
      2021...........................................................   349
    H.R. 3100, Student Food Security Act of 2021.....................   352
    H.R. 3211, Joint Chiefs Landscape Restoration Partnership Act of
      2021...........................................................   387
    H.R. 3369, Broadband for Rural America Act.......................   394
    H.R. 5680, Saving Workers by Eliminating Economic Tampering and
      Ensuring Reliability Act (SWEETER Act).........................   407

                                   MEMBER DAY

                                  ----------

                             TUESDAY, MAY 18, 2021

                              House of Representatives,
                                      Committee on Agriculture,
                                                       Washington, D.C.
        The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., via
    Zoom, Hon. David Scott of Georgia [Chairman of the Committee]
    presiding.
        Members present: Representatives David Scott of Georgia,
    Adams, Hayes, Delgado, Plaskett, O'Halleran, Lawson, Craig,
    Harder, Axne, Thompson, Crawford, LaMalfa, Rouzer, Johnson,
    Baird, Mann, Feenstra, Moore, Cammack, Fischbach, and Letlow.
        Staff present: Lyron Blum-Evitts, Prescott Martin III, Anne
    Simmons, Ashley Smith, Josh Maxwell, Patricia Straughn, Erin
    Wilson, John Konya, and Dana Sandman.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID SCOTT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                         CONGRESS FROM GEORGIA

        The Chairman. Good morning, and I want to send a big thank
    you out to all our Members who have joined us for today's
    Member Day hearing.
        Folks, agriculture has a strong foundation in our nation's
    history. Agriculture started our nation. Eighty-five percent of
    our founding fathers were farmers. That is what farming means
    to our great nation. Agriculture has been that foundation, and
    our Committee has a proud history of working together across
    party lines to advance legislation needed to ensure that we
    continue to have thriving communities, but especially rural
    communities.
        Why do I say that? Our rural communities are the heart and
    the soul of our great nation, and most certainly the heart and
    soul of our agriculture industry.
        As a matter of fact, agriculture represents out of our 50
    states, 44 of our 50 states, largest part of their economy is
    agriculture. That lets you know the significance and importance
    of agriculture. And it is no secret that our farmers, our
    ranchers, and our rural communities across this country are
    facing serious challenges of all kinds, and we have a wonderful
    roster here on our Agriculture Committee, but I recognize that
    there is a wide number of other Members who are not on our
    Committee that certainly want to be heard, and we want to hear
    them, to share with us what their ideas are.
        Folks, we have some great challenges. Climate change, rural
    broadband, the concerns and issues facing our Black farmers,
    our disaster aid, crop insurance, our food security, all of
    these issues are here, and our agriculture is grappling with
    each of these as we speak. But as I said, we have other Members
    that have issues as well, and we want to address those issues
    and make all of our Members, both Democrats and Republicans,
    who want to help us to lead this nation in maintaining
    agriculture, not just as a dynamic industry that it is, but we
    want to ensure that our United States agricultural industry is
    always kept as the number one agriculture industry in the
    world.
        So, I am looking forward to the hearing, and with that.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. David Scott follows:]

     Prepared Statement of Hon. David Scott, a Representative in Congress
                                  from Georgia
        Good morning, and thank you to all the Members who have joined us
    for today's Member Day hearing. Agriculture has a strong foundation in
    our nation's history, and the House Agriculture Committee has a proud
    history of working together to advance legislation needed to ensure we
    continue to have thriving rural communities and the resources necessary
    to feed our communities. As many of you know, agriculture is the
    economic engine of many of our states.
        It's no secret that farmers, ranchers, and our rural communities
    across the country are facing serious challenges of all kinds. We have
    a wonderful roster here on the Agriculture Committee, but I recognize
    that there are a wide variety of perspectives and ideas from Members
    outside of our membership that can be vital to the work we do and I
    want to ensure that there is always room for that here, especially as
    we prepare for the next farm bill.
        I'm looking forward to hearing from the Members today on the issues
    impacting their constituents and their suggestions and ideas on how we
    can work together to address those issues raised.
        I now recognize the Ranking Member for any opening comments he'd
    like to make.

        The Chairman. I now recognize the Ranking Member, Mr.
    Thompson, for any opening remarks he would like to make.

     OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GLENN THOMPSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                       CONGRESS FROM PENNSYLVANIA

        Mr. Thompson. All right. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
    would like to start by thanking our fellow Committee Members
    for joining us today. It is an important opportunity to hear
    from you and to hear from all of our colleagues on, as the
    Chairman said so well, on the very important issue of
    agriculture, and all the things that are within the
    jurisdiction of this Committee.
        My gratitude to those who are non-Members of this Committee
    but who have made agriculture a priority for joining us today.
        Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss if I didn't take this time
    to also reflect on the Committee's work, and in the months
    ahead. The only legislation advanced through our Committee so
    far during this Congress was a reconciliation instruction
    reported in February, and Members on both sides of the aisle
    were shut out of that process and the important timely priority
    for rural America were denied consideration. But the process
    and resulting policy product left much to be desired. Now, I
    think we will be hearing a similar message and testimony today,
    and this testimony must not only inform, but act as a guide to
    the future work of this Committee. Mr. Chairman, this is an
    opportunity to course correct the manner and process by which
    this Committee conducts its business to reflect all the
    priorities and needs of our producers and rural families, and I
    am so appreciative of all the Members on both sides of the
    aisle who are going to give voice to those issues today.
        As a start, I would like to suggest we invite Secretary
    Vilsack to testify before the Committee. We are long overdue on
    our farm bill oversight implementation and implementation
    duties, and we are getting closer every day to defeating a
    virus that has decimated our farms, our families, and our
    economy. And I am certain that the Secretary has very much to
    say on both these topics. In fact, hearing views of the
    Administration on so many matters is long overdue. This
    Committee has barely scratched the surface of COVID-related
    matters, let alone anything related to the 2018 Farm Bill. So,
    I would like to ask that we invite the various agencies within
    the Department, as well as the Farm Credit Administration and
    the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to participate in
    similar hearings. Their expertise is imperative to this
    Committee's progress and success.
        Mr. Chairman, your commitment to doing so would mean so
    much to me, as well as our Members and the communities we
    serve. And with that, I am very pleased to welcome all of our
    colleagues this morning, and I look forward to their testimony.
    I yield back the balance of my time.
        The Chairman. Well, certainly. Thank you, Ranking Member
    Thompson, and you can rest assured I agree with you
    wholeheartedly. We do need to bring in Farm Credit. We need to
    bring in the futures industry. It is such an exciting and
    dynamic time for our wonderful world of agriculture, and we
    need the help of all these folks. So, you can certainly count
    on me to be supportive of you in that request and your move.
        Now, I would like to welcome our colleagues who have joined
    us today to provide testimony on issues that are important to
    the nation, but specifically to their Congressional district,
    and we want to know how we can help you.
        I believe we have Representative Baird here from Indiana,
    Representative Hinson from Iowa, Miss Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon
    from Puerto Rico, Representative Feenstra from Iowa, and
    Representative Dusty Johnson from South Dakota, and I believe
    Representative Westerman from Arkansas, and Representative
    Malliotakis from New York. There may be others, but we are
    excited to hear from you. Our staff is here taking very good
    notes because we have a wonderful staff. They are the ones that
    help us get the work done.
        We are ready to begin, and there were even more than the
    ones I mentioned who wanted to be here with us this morning,
    and some are submitting their comments for the record. But each
    Member that comes before us will be recognized for 5 minutes,
    and now I recognize the gentleman from Indiana, Representative
    Baird. You are recognized for 5 minutes.

    STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES R. BAIRD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                              FROM INDIANA

        Mr. Baird. Thank you, Chairman Scott and Ranking Member
    Thompson, and my colleagues for providing this opportunity to
    speak today. I am excited to sit before so many passionate and
    talented colleagues to share my vision and concerns for the
    direction of our esteemed panel.
        As we have seen so far in the early days of the 117th
    Congress, our country faces many challenges and our policy is
    being shaped by significant political forces on both sides of
    the aisle. Much as my beloved Hoosier State has long been seen
    as the Crossroads of America, I see plainly where our Committee
    stands at the crossroads of these important policy challenges.
        That said, while I see great opportunity in the potential
    for agriculture and the broader whole of rural America to
    effect impactful change on these challenges, I, at the present,
    find myself dismayed at the direction this Committee has taken
    in these early months. Many times, so far this year, I have
    found myself fearing that the storied tradition of
    bipartisanship that our Committee has long been known for has
    been jeopardized as we hold meetings on niche, partisan issues
    with partisan approaches. As we move forward with the remainder
    of this year and this Congress, it is my sincere hope that we
    will correct the course of our panel away from the spotlight of
    mainstream partisan issues and refocus our attention on
    providing much needed leadership to rural America, agricultural
    producers, and the critical importance of our nation's food
    systems.
        The Administration, House and Senate leadership, and even
    the leadership of this Committee have made clear that climate
    change mitigation is among the highest priorities of this
    Congress. This issue is a perfect example of a topic so easily
    corruptible by partisan and political rancor, but with so much
    potential for our mission if approached responsibly. As we
    assuredly move forward in addressing this sensitive and timely
    topic, we must focus our efforts on developing real, impactful,
    and achievable solutions that encourage growth, and steer away
    from some of the options that create burden and reduced
    efficiency.
        While there is a real risk that climate change policy could
    create many challenges for the agricultural industry, if
    addressed correctly, it could instead offer tremendous
    opportunity with multiple beneficiaries. Our goal should be to
    establish turn-key solutions, incentivize participation, and
    unlock the potential for science to aid in increased
    sustainability.
        We need to find and provide the tools that allow producers
    to work smarter, like improving rural connectivity that allows
    for increases in precision agriculture which leads to increased
    yields with reduced inputs like fertilizers, pesticides, water,
    and fuel. We need to evaluate and retool our regulatory
    pathways to allow innovative products like feed additives that
    can reduce methane and other greenhouse gases created by
    livestock. Adopt new technologies like soy-methyl-ester
    sealants for roads and bridges that don't require replacement
    and they double the life of concrete infrastructure, greatly
    reducing carbon emissions while providing demand for American
    soybeans. We need to give credit to farmers and ranchers for
    the good work they already do to benefit our environment
    through good stewardship, conservation, and the greenhouse
    gases they sequester through the growing cycle. We need to
    facilitate the adoption of tools like methane digesters like
    those used by Fair Oaks Farms and Biotown Ag in my district to
    turn animal and food waste into incredibly useful biogas that
    can be used for electricity and for transportation fuels. Of
    course, we need to look for more opportunities, both
    domestically and abroad, to increase adoption of biofuels like
    ethanol; which a Harvard study recently reported offers a 46
    percent reduction in greenhouse gases over the fuel additives
    they replaced, all while rebuilding our rural economies and
    without decimating our fossil fuel industry.
        These are just a few examples of how to turn challenge into
    opportunity, but regardless of your pursuit of these or other
    solutions, it is my highest priority that whatever policies we
    adopt around this issue be producer-focused, accessible, and
    not punitive.
        Other key areas of importance for me this year include
    unwavering support for the critical safety-net programs that
    keep producers in business and our nation's food supply stable.
    Protecting the Commodity Credit Corporation from being
    commandeered by the Administration. Expanding access to foreign
    markets for our agricultural goods. Protecting our nation's
    biotech and scientific capabilities by stopping intellectual
    property theft and forced technology transfers to gain access
    to foreign markets like China. And shaping new regulatory
    pathways, allowing innovative new products to come to market
    and more accurately evaluating products already there.
        I only have about 30 seconds, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. All right, go right ahead. We will give you
    that extra.
        Mr. Baird. As we move forward with our work in Congress, I
    look forward to offering my passion and expertise to help bring
    real solutions to the challenges facing our nation. I look
    forward to working closely alongside each and every one of you
    as we work to serve America's farmers and ranchers, and the
    whole of rural America.
        With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Baird follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Hon. James R. Baird, a Representative in Congress
                                  from Indiana
        Thank you, Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Thompson, and my
    colleagues for providing the opportunity to speak today. I am excited
    to sit before so many passionate and talented colleagues to share my
    vision and concerns for the direction of our esteemed panel.
        As we've seen so far in the early days of the 117th Congress, our
    country faces many great challenges and our policy is being shaped by
    significant political forces on both sides of the aisle. Much as my
    beloved Hoosier State has long been seen as the Crossroads of America,
    I see plainly where our Committee stands as the crossroads of these
    important policy challenges.
        That said, while I see great opportunity in the potential for
    agriculture and the broader whole of rural America to effect impactful
    change on these challenges--I, at the present, find myself dismayed at
    the direction this Committee has taken in these early months. Many
    times, so far this year, I have found myself fearing that the storied
    tradition of bipartisanship that our Committee has long been known for
    has been jeopardized as we hold meeting after meeting on niche,
    partisan issues with partisan approaches. As we move forward with the
    remainder of this year and this Congress, it is my sincere hope that we
    will correct the course of our panel away from the spotlight of
    mainstream-partisan issues and refocus our attention on providing much
    needed leadership for rural America, agricultural producers, and the
    critical importance of our nation's food systems.
        The Administration, House and Senate Leadership, and even the
    leadership of this Committee have made clear that climate change
    mitigation is among the highest priorities for this Congress. This
    issue is the perfect example of a topic so easily corruptible by
    partisanship and political rancor, but with so much potential for our
    mission if approached responsibly. As we assuredly move forward in
    addressing this sensitive and timely topic, we must focus our efforts
    on developing real, impactful, and achievable solutions that encourage
    growth, and steer away from any options that create burden or reduced
    efficiency.
        While there is real risk that climate change policy could create
    many challenges for the agricultural industry, if addressed correctly,
    it could instead offer tremendous opportunity with multiple
    beneficiaries. Our goal should be to establish turn-key solutions,
    incentivize participation, and unlock the potential for science to aid
    in increased sustainability.
        We need to find and provide the tools that allow producers to work
    smarter, like improving rural connectivity that allows for increases in
    precision agriculture which leads to increased yields with reduced
    inputs like fertilizers, pesticides, water, and fossil fuels. We need
    to evaluate and retool our regulatory pathways to allow innovate
    products like feed additives that can reduce methane and other
    greenhouse gasses created by livestock. Adopt new technologies like
    soy-methyl-ester sealants for roads and bridges that replace harmful
    petroleum products and double the life of concrete infrastructure--
    greatly reducing carbon emissions while providing demand for American
    soybeans. We need to give credit to farmers and ranchers for the good
    work they already do to benefit our environment through good
    stewardship, conservation, and the greenhouse gasses they sequester
    through the growing cycle. We need to facilitate the adoption of tools
    like methane digesters like that used by Fair Oaks Farms in my district
    to turn animal and food waste into incredibly useful biogas that can be
    used for electricity and transportation fuels. And of course, we need
    to look for more opportunities both domestically and abroad to increase
    adoption of biofuels like ethanol--which a Harvard study recently
    reported offers a 46% reduction in greenhouse gasses over gasoline--all
    while rebuilding rural economies.
        These are just a few examples of how to turn challenge into
    opportunity, but regardless of our pursuit of these or other solutions,
    it is my highest priority that whatever policies we adopt around this
    issue be producer-focused, accessible, and not punitive.
        Other key areas of importance for me this year include unwavering
    support of the critical safety-net programs that keep producers in
    business and our nation's food supply stable. Protecting the Commodity
    Credit Corporation from being commandeered by the Administration.
    Expanding access to foreign markets for our agricultural goods.
    Protecting our nation's biotech and scientific capabilities by stopping
    intellectual property theft and forced technology transfers to gain
    access to foreign markets like China. And shaping new regulatory
    pathways--allowing innovative new products to come to market and more
    accurately evaluating products already there.
        As we move forward with our work this Congress, I look forward to
    offering my passion and expertise to help bring real solutions to the
    challenges facing our nation. I look forward working closely alongside
    each and every one of you as we work to serve America's farmers and
    ranchers, and the whole of rural America.
        With that Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
                Thank you,

    James R. Baird,
    Member of Congress.

        The Chairman. Certainly. Thank you, Representative Baird,
    for that excellent testimony.
        Next, we will hear from Mrs. Hinson from Iowa.
        Mrs. Hinson. Thank you.
        The Chairman. You are recognized.

     STATEMENT OF HON. ASHLEY HINSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                               FROM IOWA

        Mrs. Hinson. Thank you, Chairman Scott, and Ranking Member
    Thompson as well for having me. Members of the Committee, it is
    a pleasure to be with you today here on Member Day. I look
    forward to offering my ideas to some of the challenges faced by
    the agriculture sector in Iowa. I know we are well-represented
    on the Committee, but I know there are so many issues facing
    our rural communities and I just wanted to add my voice to
    those issues today.
        Last month, I introduced H.R. 2518, the PRECISE Act, which
    is legislation that would make it easier for our farmers to
    access precision agriculture technology by allowing existing
    farm bill USDA programs like EQIP and CSP to cover precision ag
    tech.
        The legislation presents a farmer-focused solution to the
    very real challenges we face, and I hope it will continue to
    gain additional bipartisan support.
        I have heard from Iowans across the ag industry about how
    precision ag technology is key to increasing crop yields, while
    simultaneously lowering our overall inputs, front-end costs to
    our farmers, and also positive environmental impacts. However,
    it is also extremely expensive to start using this precision ag
    technology, making it out of reach for many of our family
    farmers in Iowa.
        The PRECISE Act would expand access to this technology,
    including tools to connect rural broadband for producers using
    these innovative strategies. Mr. Chairman, I did appreciate
    your remarks about rural broadband as well. We should harness
    the knowledge and experience within the agriculture community
    to provide innovative solutions and be good stewards to our
    environment, and we can do that.
        Farmers don't just deserve to be at the table because these
    policies impact them, they deserve to be at the table because
    they have the valuable ideas and solutions that bureaucrats who
    have never set foot on a farm could ever imagine.
        So, I hope we can work together to advance priorities like
    the PRECISE Act that encourage our farmers, our producers, and
    our ranchers to truly innovate in what they do. Farmers in the
    Heartland have solutions to more problems than just feeding the
    world. They help fuel it, also through biofuel production.
    Biofuels are on hand and available right now to have a dramatic
    and positive impact on the nation's fuel supply, improving our
    energy security and minimizing environmental outputs at the
    same time. As we have seen over the last few weeks, our fuel
    supply is volatile and can be subject to national security
    threats. So, simple question. Why not turn to our own Iowa
    producers right now? They have the solution.
        It is critical that this Committee hold the EPA accountable
    to maintain the integrity of the Renewable Fuel Standard to
    maximize the benefit of biofuels.
        And, before I close today with my remarks, I just wanted to
    talk a little bit more about the lack of access and
    connectivity that many rural Iowans and Americans face each and
    every day. Rural Iowans deserve equitable access to essential
    services like broadband and healthcare, as well as rural
    community development and economic opportunity. Rural
    communities cannot continue to be left behind. Their voices
    matter. Their stories are important. We need to tell them here
    in Washington. And, I look forward to working with all of you
    to ensure that they are heard as we continue to legislate here
    in Congress.
        Finally, I urge this Committee to take up the PRECISE Act
    along with other legislation that will continue to support
    Iowa's farmers, ranchers, and biofuels producers, and I stand
    ready to work with this Committee, my colleagues from Iowa, to
    support our agriculture sector back home.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the time today, and I yield
    back.
        [The prepared statement of Mrs. Hinson follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Hon. Ashley Hinson, a Representative in Congress
                                   from Iowa
        Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Thompson, Members of the Committee,

        Thank you for the opportunity to attend Member Day and offer ideas
    and solutions for challenges faced by the agriculture sector in Iowa,
    as well as issues facing our rural communities.
        Last month, I introduced the PRECISE Act, legislation that would
    make it easier for farmers to access precision agriculture technology
    by allowing existing USDA Federal programs under the farm bill to
    support and encourage these practices.
        This legislation is part of an effort led by Leader McCarthy and
    House Agriculture Committee Ranking Member Thompson to promote
    responsible energy solutions that prioritize input from the agriculture
    sector. It's a farmer-focused solution to very real challenges, and I
    hope that it will gain bipartisan support.
        I have heard from Iowans across the ag industry about how precision
    agriculture technology is key to increasing crop yields, while
    simultaneously lowering overall inputs, front-end costs to farmers, and
    environmental impacts.
        However, it is also extremely expensive to start using this
    technology, making it out of reach for many family farmers.
        The PRECISE Act would expand access to this technology, including
    tools to connect rural broadband for producers using these innovative
    practices.
        Farmers, producers, and ranchers in Iowa care deeply about
    conservation. They are the best stewards of their own land. Our
    environmental policies should reflect that core belief.
        We should harness the knowledge and experience within the
    agriculture community to provide innovative solutions to the climate
    challenge. Farmers don't just deserve to be at the table because these
    policies impact them--they should be central to the discussion because
    they have valuable ideas and solutions that bureaucrats who have never
    set foot on a farm could never imagine.
        I hope we can work together to advance policies like the PRECISE
    Act that will create a healthy economy and a healthy environment.
        Farmers in the Heartland have solutions to more problems than just
    feeding the world--they help fuel it, too. Our corn and soybean
    producers can assist with one of the hottest issues the Administration
    is trying to address: climate change. Biofuels are a low-carbon, low-
    octane solution that are readily available to meet an increased demand.
    As we've seen over the last few weeks, our fuel supply is volatile and
    can be subject to national security threats. Why not turn to our own
    Iowa producers, who are more than capable of bolstering our nation's
    fuel supply and reducing our nation's carbon footprint?
        The ag industry is constantly working at a disadvantage because its
    been overlooked far too often. The lack of access that rural
    communities have to basic necessities is atrocious and extremely
    unfair. This is the backbone of our nation. Increased access to rural
    broadband would significantly improve the productivity and efficiency
    of the agriculture industry, including its ability to turn to
    modernized farming and conservation practices such as precision
    agriculture technology. Iowans in rural areas should not be expected to
    drive miles to find a gas station or a library in a nearby town just to
    connect to the internet. It's time we provide rural America the
    attention it deserves and connect it with the rest of the country and
    the world.
        Rural Iowans also need access to other essential services,
    including rural community development and economic opportunity. Rural
    communities cannot continue to be left behind--their voices matter,
    their stories are important, and I look forward to working with you all
    to ensure that they are heard as we legislate here in Congress.
        I urge this Committee to take up the PRECISE Act, along with other
    legislation that will support Iowa's farmers, ranchers, and biofuel
    producers, and I stand ready to work with this Committee to support our
    agriculture sector. I yield back.
                             Submitted Legislation
      1.  H.R. 2518, Producing Responsible Energy and Conservation
                Incentives and Solutions for the Environment Act (PRECISE
                Act): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-
                117hr2518ih/pdf/BILLS-117hr2518
                ih.pdf. (See p. 216).

        The Chairman. I just want to say, Representative Hinson,
    that you are absolutely right, and this Committee is with you
    100 percent on the precision agriculture and our needs and at
    the forefront, we are going to get broadband established. It is
    so critical, and I just wanted to give a powerful amen to that.
    Our staff is working on legislation to move us immediately. We
    had a great hearing on it. Excellent presentation,
    Representative Hinson.
        And now, we will hear from Congresswoman Jenniffer
    Gonzalez-Colon.

        STATEMENT OF HON. JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON, A RESIDENT
               COMMISSIONER IN CONGRESS FROM PUERTO RICO

        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman,
    for allowing me to participate in this Member Day. Thank you,
    Ranking Member Thompson, for the opportunity.
        As you know, Puerto Rico does not participate in the
    Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, like their
    counterparts in the states, D.C., Guam and the U.S. Virgin
    Islands. Instead, it has the Nutrition Assistance Program, or
    NAP, which is a capped block grant typically funded at over
    $1.9 billion every year and is currently serving over 1.5
    million Island residents.
        NAP is one of the top assistance programs for the needy
    constituents of the Island. Similar to SNAP, NAP provides a
    monthly allotment meant to support a healthy and balanced diet.
    However, due to limited funding, NAP cannot automatically
    adjust to fluctuations in demand, including those related to
    emergencies, and provides less benefits to eligible
    participants.
        I can tell you that because after Hurricane Maria in 2017,
    the demand for NAP participation increased significantly. We
    noticed a similar pattern with the earthquakes that began in
    late 2018, and now with the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. It has
    become clear that NAP is one of the first programs my
    constituents turn to during the aftermath of an emergency or a
    crisis. Still, the program cannot automatically accommodate
    sudden increases in demand and, as a result, we have to turn to
    Congress on multiple occasions to secure emergency NAP funds.
        Additionally, the base block grant leaves my constituents
    with less benefits each month. For example, a household of one
    enrolled in NAP receives a maximum of $112, compared to a
    maximum monthly allotment of $234 in SNAP. Similarly, a
    household of two in NAP receives $216, compared to a maximum
    monthly allotment of $430 under SNAP.
        While I appreciate the support of my colleagues with
    ensuring Puerto Rico has enough NAP funds to cover benefits
    during emergency periods, true relief and proper assistance can
    only be achieved with a transition to SNAP. This is my goal,
    and my office is working closely with the Government of Puerto
    Rico and USDA to understand the implications of this transition
    and devise an appropriate plan for Puerto Rico to successfully
    operate SNAP. As such, I respectfully request you continue
    working alongside my office as we develop a path towards a
    viable transition to SNAP.
        Last, I would like to convey my full support for the
    Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and
    Children, or WIC, which supports nearly 100,000 constituents in
    Puerto Rico. I am an original cosponsor of H.R. 2011, known as
    the WIC Act of 2021, which would expand eligibility and address
    specific gaps in nutritional assistance for postpartum women
    and young children.
        Thank you and I yield back.
        [The prepared statement of Miss Gonzalez-Colon follows:]

        Prepared Statement of Hon. Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, a Resident
                   Commissioner in Congress from Puerto Rico
        Thank you, Chairman Scott and [Ranking Member] Thompson for the
    opportunity to participate in today' Member Day Hearing.
        As you know, Puerto Rico does not participate in the Supplemental
    Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) like their counterparts in the
    states, D.C., Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Instead, it has the
    Nutrition Assistance Program, or NAP, which is a capped block grant
    typically funded at over $1.9 billion every year and is currently
    serving over 1.5 million Island residents.
        NAP is one of the top assistance programs for needy constituents on
    the Island. Similar to SNAP, NAP provides a monthly allotment meant to
    support a healthy and balanced diet. However, due to limited funding,
    NAP cannot automatically adjust to fluctuations in demand--including
    those related to emergencies--and provides less benefits to eligible
    participants.
        After Hurricane Maria in 2017, demand for NAP participation
    increased significantly. We noticed a similar pattern with the
    earthquakes that began in late 2018, and now with the ongoing COVID-19
    pandemic. It has become clear that NAP is one of the first programs my
    constituents turn to during the aftermath of an emergency or crisis.
    Still, the program cannot automatically accommodate sudden increases in
    demand and, as a result, we have had to turn to Congress on multiple
    occasions to secure emergency NAP funds.
        Additonally, the base block grant leaves my constituents with less
    benefits each month. For example, a household of one enrolled in NAP
    receives a maximum of $112, compared to a maximum monthly allotment of
    $234 in SNAP. Similarly, a household of two in NAP receives $216,
    compared to a maximum monthly allotment of $430 under SNAP.
        While I appreciate the support of my colleagues with ensuring
    Puerto Rico has enough NAP funds to cover benefits during emergency
    periods, true relief and proper assistance can only be achieved with a
    transition to SNAP. This is my goal, and my office is working closely
    with the Government of Puerto Rico and USDA to understand the
    implications of this transition and devise an appropriate plan for
    Puerto Rico to successfully operate SNAP. As such, I respectfully
    request you continue working alongside my office as we develop a path
    towards a viable transition to SNAP.
        Last, I would like to convey my full support for the Special
    Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, or
    WIC, which supports nearly 100,000 constituents in Puerto Rico. I am an
    original cosponsor of H.R. 2011, known as the WIC Act, which would
    expand eligibility and address specific gaps in nutrition assistance
    for postpartum women and young children.
        Thank you and I [yield] back.
                             Submitted Legislation
      1.  H.R. 2011, Wise Investment in Children Act of 2021 (WIC Act of
                2021): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-
                117hr2011ih/pdf/BILLS-117hr
                2011ih.pdf (See p. 171).

        The Chairman. Thank you very much for your excellent
    testimony, and we hear your concerns about NAP and the fact
    that sometimes that money runs out. We are going to be working
    with you on that. Excellent testimony there, Miss Gonzalez-
    Colon.
        And now, we will hear from Representative Feenstra from
    Iowa.

    STATEMENT OF HON. RANDY FEENSTRA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                               FROM IOWA

        Mr. Feenstra. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
    Thompson. Thank you for providing the opportunity for me to
    testify today.
        I want to call the Committee's attention to the current
    market conditions facing cattle producers in Iowa and across
    the United States.
        Since August of 2019, there have been multiple extreme
    market disruptions to the cattle industry. The cattle
    processing facility fire in Holcomb, Kansas and supply chain
    disruptions caused by COVID-19 have had serious impacts on the
    cattle market to the detriment of many of our cattle producers.
    As a result, we saw boxed beef prices dramatically increase
    while live cattle prices have decreased over the last year. In
    some cases, cattle producers were left without a market to sell
    their cattle and were responsible for higher costs to feed and
    care for the cattle until a market could be found.
        Over the past several weeks, we have again seen the price
    of boxed beef continue to increase while cattle prices remain
    stagnant. The gross packer margin on cattle has grown, but I
    continue to hear the cattle producers are struggling to even
    break even, to a point of losing approximately $100 to $120 a
    head for every one sold.
        There are a lot of factors contributing to the current
    market situation. We know that the four meatpacking companies
    control over 80 percent of the cattle processing industry. This
    simple fact leaves the cattle industry particularly vulnerable
    to market disruptions. It also can leave cattle producers with
    few options to market their cattle if a packing facility has to
    reduce their processing capacity, which we saw with COVID and
    now we hear a lot of packers saying they don't have workers,
    which is causing a slowdown.
        In Iowa, I have heard from the producers concerned about
    the packers having a captive supply. Packers have purchased all
    the cattle they need through formula contracts, whose details
    are not known to the public, and then those packers are not
    active in the market for a week. As a result, some cattle
    producers are left without a place to sell their cattle, and
    must continue to cover the cost of feeding and caring for them,
    as the commodity prices continue to soar.
        This issue highlights a growing discussion if there is
    enough cash negotiation taking place in the marketplace to
    ensure true price discovery and to allow cattle producers
    sufficient leverage in the cash negotiations. There are several
    legislative proposals that are being discussed about how to
    tackle this issue and I believe it is a discussion that must
    take place prior to reauthorization of Livestock Mandatory
    Reporting.
        We have also heard that labor shortages of COVID-19
    precautions have impacted processors' ability to operate at
    full capacity. Again, this is a very serious problem as the
    cattle continue to back up. We should also take time to examine
    how we can assist small- and medium-sized processors to create
    additional markets.
        These are just a few of the issues that I am hearing
    contributing to the current situation facing our cattle
    producers. While there are several intertwined issues taking
    place, I believe it is our responsibility on this Committee to
    examine what is going on and put forth solutions that will help
    remedy the state of the market to ensure family cattle
    producers can make a living through their hard work. The time
    to act is now and I hope Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
    Thompson, that you will commit to working with me toward a
    hearing on examining the state of the market and putting forth
    solutions in the near future.
        I cannot tell you how crucial this is. We have current
    independent cattle producers that will probably not be in
    business in the next 6 months if we do not get this rectified.
    It seems that there is a captive market through the packers,
    and if you are not part of the packers, you are out in the
    cold. These are things that need to be looked at. Thank you,
    Ranking Member and Mr. Chairman, for considering these options.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Feenstra follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Hon. Randy Feenstra a Representative in Congress
                                   from Iowa
        Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Thompson:

        Thank you for providing the opportunity to testify today. I want to
    call the Committee's attention to the current market conditions facing
    cattle producers in Iowa and across the United States.
        Since August of 2019, there have been multiple extreme market
    disruptions to the cattle industry. A cattle processing facility fire
    in Holcomb, Kansas and supply chain disruptions caused by COVID-19 had
    serious impacts on the cattle producers. As a result, we saw boxed beef
    prices increase while live cattle prices decreased. In some cases,
    cattle producers were left without a market to sell their cattle and
    were responsible for higher costs to feed and care for the cattle until
    a market could be found.
        While these black-swan events had negative impacts on cattle
    producers, the current market situation remains of serious concern to
    cattle producers. As of May 10, 2021 the choice boxed beef cutout was
    valued at more than $309/cwt. At the same time, cattle producers
    received average bids of approximately $118/cwt. Further the gross
    packer margin, on an average steer weighing approximately 1,450 lbs.,
    with a 63 percent dressing percentage, exceeds $1,000/head. This comes
    as I continue to hear from cattle producers struggling to break-even.
        There are a lot of factors contributing to the current market
    situation. We know that four meatpacking companies control over 80
    percent of the cattle processing industry. This simple fact does leave
    the cattle industry particularly vulnerable to market disruptions. It
    also can leave cattle producers with few options if a packing facility
    has to reduce their processing capacity. In Iowa, I have heard from
    producers concerned about packers having a captive supply. Packers have
    purchased all the cattle they need through formula contracts, whose
    details are not known to the public, and are not active in the market
    for a week. As a result, some cattle producers are left without a place
    to sell their cattle, and must continue to cover the cost of care, feed
    and yardage--all at a time when we see crop commodity prices soaring.
        This issue highlights a growing discussion about if there is enough
    cash negotiation taking place in the marketplace to ensure true price
    discovery and to allow cattle producers sufficient leverage in the cash
    negotiations. There are several legislative proposals that being
    discussed about how to tackle this issue and I believe it is a
    discussion that must take place prior to the reauthorization of
    Livestock Mandatory Reporting.
        We have also heard that labor shortages and COVID-19 precautions
    have impacted processor's ability to operate at full capacity. This is
    a serious concern and should be examined to ensure that our cattle
    producers have markets to sell their cattle. We should also take time
    to examine how we can assist small- and medium-sized processors to
    create additional markets.
        These are just a few of the issues that I am hearing contributing
    to the current situation facing our cattle producers. While there are
    several, intertwined issues taking place, I believe it is the
    responsibly of this Committee to examine what is going on and to put
    forth solutions that will help remedy the state of the market to ensure
    the family cattle producer can make a living from their hard work. The
    time to act is now and I hope Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Thompson,
    that you will commit to working with me towards a hearing to examine
    the state of the market and putting forth solutions in the near future.

        The Chairman. Well, thank you, Representative Feenstra, and
    you have raised some very important issues that are of concern
    to me as well. Quite honestly, I have talked with several in
    the cattle industry about getting help to the small- and
    medium-sized producers, but it is very interesting that you
    pointed out that some of our cattle producers are now losing up
    to $120 per head. That is something that we look forward to
    helping and making sure our cattle industry is thriving. All
    right. Thank you very much.
        Now, we will go to Mr. Dusty Johnson of Iowa. Mr. Johnson?

     STATEMENT OF HON. DUSTY JOHNSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                           FROM SOUTH DAKOTA

        Mr. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Ranking
    Member.
        As we talk about the priorities we want this Committee to
    deal with in this Congress, I do appreciate the opportunity to
    be heard.
        I am going to talk about two things today: the reopening of
    FSA offices, and the cattle markets. Now, many of my colleagues
    have heard me talk about these things before, but they are
    really critically important.
        Now, the pandemic has put a ton of strain on these local
    FSA offices. It is not just the typical programs of the ARCs
    and the PLCs and the CRPs, but we have obviously a disaster
    program, CFAP, which was new to producers, new to FSA offices,
    put just an unprecedented amount of work onto those offices,
    and the offices have been closed.
        Now, almost a year ago, the Trump Administration laid out a
    data-driven reopening process that would use COVID metrics from
    that localized area to decide when offices could reopen. So, we
    had a pathway to reopening. Many of these offices were moving
    in the right direction, and then we had the new Administration
    reverse that, closing all of these offices, telling them that
    they could no longer take appointments. And given the workload
    that is out there, we have to get these offices opened back up.
    This Committee has a constitutional duty to do oversight. This
    is the kind of meat and potatoes, blocking and tackling
    oversight that we should be conducting. We haven't had a
    hearing yet with Administration officials to talk about
    operational issues related to producers, and we really should.
    So, that is number one.
        Number two, I want to talk about the cattle markets. You
    know, most commodities have really rebounded pretty
    substantially since the earliest days of the pandemic, but
    cattle producers have been left behind in that rally.
        Now, for a lot of the commodities, it is substantial
    increase in export demand, in some cases really incredible
    increase in export demand that has driven that. But again, the
    cattle guys have been left behind, and there is a tremendous
    amount of concern, uncertainty, and pain out in cattle country.
    I just want to make sure that we understand this has got to be
    something we address at the Committee level.
        Now, there are a few reasons for this. Number one, we do
    have serious labor shortages. That is a national problem across
    all industries, but when you don't have the workers able to
    show up at these packing plants, it substantially reduces the
    capacity. That has huge ripple impacts.
        Now, there are also some structural deficiencies,
    especially a lack of processing capacity. Even during the best
    of times, we don't have enough shackle space. And right now,
    what compounds this problem, and which has a factor that has so
    many people in cattle country nervous, is we have a developing
    drought which is at really the worst time going to send a
    message to the market to draw down herd size, and it is going
    to cut into the growing season for grass, and that is going to
    be a real problem.
        So, the USDA did an analysis. They did an investigation.
    They released--I guess you would call it an interim report that
    analyzed the growing gap between boxed beef prices and what
    producers were getting on the hoof. And I thought it had some
    valuable insight. It showed that because of the pandemic, we
    had a 40 percent reduction in the processing capacity at the
    plants. And that that choke point created very negative impacts
    on both ends, to both consumers and producers. Producers, your
    cow/calf folks, were getting--or your feeders were getting 18
    percent less than they were before on already lousy prices, and
    then you had consumers who were paying, in some cases, 80
    percent more for boxed beef. That choke point, that structural
    deficiency, is a serious problem.
        So, what do we do about it? Well, I introduced H.R. 8489,
    the PRICE Act (Price Reform In Cattle Economics Act), which has
    a number of things related to transparency, new risk management
    tools, the ability for small producers--not producers, sorry--
    processors to grow their market share, which would help. This
    Committee deserves some praise in working some of those ideas
    already through this Committee this year. We have leveled the
    playing field for small processors as they work to increase
    overtime inspection. I think that was a great success, but we
    need to build on that.
        I want to call out the fact that a recent meeting organized
    by the Livestock Marketing Association brought together leaders
    from American Farm Bureau, American Farmers Union, National
    Cattlemen's Beef Association, R-CALF USA, and the U.S.
    Cattlemen. Now, these guys did something extraordinary. They
    agreed on three prongs that they could work together on. I am
    supportive of all those prongs, and I want to share them with
    my colleagues here.
        Number one, let's reauthorize Livestock Mandatory
    Reporting, and let's do that in a way that includes formula-
    based prices under the same reporting requirements, and also,
    let's get a contract library established. Number two, let's
    have the DOJ deliver a final report on all these market
    disruptions. And number three, let's encourage the investment
    of and the development of new, independent local and regional
    packers. My PRICE Act deals with issues one and three, and then
    earlier this week, we released a letter that deals with issue
    two.
        I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member. This is
    an incredibly important issue that I am looking forward to
    addressing with the Committee.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Hon. Dusty Johnson, a Representative in Congress
                               from South Dakota
        Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Thompson, thank you for holding
    this Member Day hearing to highlight priorities important to our
    constituents back home. As a Member of this Committee I often get the
    opportunity to address policy concerns at a national level, but today I
    would like to highlight some issues that are especially impacting
    citizens in South Dakota.
    Farm Service Agency (FSA) Offices
        The pandemic has put enormous strain on our local FSA offices.
    Between disaster programs such as the Coronavirus Food Assistance
    Program (CFAP), signup for standing programs like the Agriculture Risk
    Coverage and Price Loss Coverage (ARC/PLC[)], and the Conservation
    Reserve Program (CRP), there is an unprecedented amount of work that
    needs to be done.
        In May 2020 the Trump Administration detailed a pandemic reopening
    plan for FSA offices that was based on science and dictated the ability
    of offices to reopen depending on conditions in their respective
    counties.
        While more restrictive than some may have liked, this was at least
    dependent on a metric that made some sort of sense.
        This is why it is so confusing to me that after many county offices
    were on a path to reopen in areas where the pandemic was under control,
    Secretary Vilsack dictated that all offices should shut back down and
    quit taking appointments.
        Mr. Chairman, this is just one of the numerous issues that this
    Committee has a responsibility to conduct thorough oversight. However
    to date we have not had a single hearing with Administration officials
    to discuss important issues like these. I hope that changes soon and
    the Agriculture Committee gets back to focusing on issues that matter
    to farmers, ranchers, and rural America.
    Cattle Markets
        While many commodities have rebounded since the beginning of the
    pandemic, driven by increased export demand, cattlemen in South Dakota
    have been left out as processing capacity and labor to run at full
    force remain an issue.
        Compounding these struggles are a developing drought that will
    likely cut into growing season and push cow herd liquidations.
        These black swan events have taken their toll on ranchers and
    feeders. USDA's Boxed Beef & Fed Cattle Price Spread Investigation
    Report * from last summer showed that in the aftermath of the pandemic
    fed cattle prices declined 18% and beef processing capacity utilization
    by roughly 40%. At the same time, boxed beef prices rose almost 80%.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        * Editor's note: the report is located on p. 409.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        That's why I urge this Committee to continue to examine these
    important issues and not leave cattlemen behind in discussions. That's
    why last Congress I introduced H.R. 8489, the PRICE Act that would
    focus on greater transparency, increased risk management solutions, and
    open up opportunities for new and expanding meat processors.
        Last Congress, this Committee was successful in passing several
    things that moved us forward, including my bill to provide a level
    playing field for small processors seeking overtime inspection.
        I look forward to working with the Committee and this Congress to
    address these important issues to South Dakota.
                             Submitted Legislation
      1.  H.R. 8489, Price Reform In Cattle Economics Act (PRICE Act):
                https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-116hr8489ih/pdf/
                BILLS-116hr8489
                ih.pdf (See p. 64).

        The Chairman. Well, thank you for that, Representative
    Johnson, and let me apologize to you. I have recognized you as
    being from Iowa, when in fact, you represent the wonderful
    people of South Dakota. I am sorry about that.
        Mr. Johnson. They get a lot better corn yields in Iowa, so
    if we could get that, that would be just fine.
        The Chairman. All right. There you go. Thank you. An
    excellent presentation, and we look forward to working with you
    to address those concerns.
        Now, we will hear from Representative Westerman from
    Arkansas.

    STATEMENT OF HON. BRUCE WESTERMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                             FROM ARKANSAS

        Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Chairman Scott, and Ranking
    Member Thompson for the opportunity to testify today. As
    Ranking Member of the House Natural Resources Committee, I
    enjoy working closely with both of you on our mutual goals of
    conserving the environment and ensuring the prosperity of rural
    America.
        Mr. Chairman, as you know, our nation is blessed with an
    abundance of natural resources. We have the responsibility to
    manage and utilize these resources in ways that allow them to
    flourish for future generations, and I firmly believe that the
    healthiest, most resilient environment and economy are ones
    that scientifically balance both the needs of the land with the
    needs of the people living connected to the land.
        True conservation utilizes innovative new approaches to
    maximize utility and access to our lands, while ensuring their
    long-term health. One piece of bipartisan legislation that
    exemplifies these principles of conservation and innovation is
    H.R. 2639, the Trillion Trees Act. It is a bill that I re-
    introduced this past April. The bill is endorsed by over 50
    stakeholder organizations and has currently 96 bipartisan
    cosponsors. My bill would improve our nation's forestlands and
    establish the U.S. as a leader in the global One Trillion Trees
    Initiative by incentivizing improved regeneration, management,
    and utilization of our forests.
        Studies show planting and restoring one trillion trees
    globally would sequester 205 gigatons of carbon. That is an
    amount equivalent to \2/3\ of the carbon released since the
    beginning of the Industrial Revolution. We currently have over
    400 parts per million of carbon in the atmosphere, and the
    American people are demanding that Congress take practical
    action to address this issue. Natural climate solutions like
    the Trillion Trees Act are key to our future as we seek
    commonsense, innovative ways to address atmospheric carbon.
        House Natural Resources Republicans held a forum on the
    bill in celebration of Arbor Day, where representatives from
    Walmart, the National Wildlife Federation, the National
    Alliance of Forest Owners, and University of Idaho testified in
    strong support of the bill. During this forum, witnesses
    highlighted both the economic and carbon-storing benefits of
    sustainable forest products and global reforestation
    initiatives. As this Committee works to identify practical,
    pro-growth carbon solutions, I hope that the House Agriculture
    Committee will hold an official hearing on the Trillion Trees
    Act.
        Additionally, I would like to highlight several bills which
    were included in the Trillion Trees Act, but were also
    introduced as standalone pieces of legislation referred to this
    Committee.
        The first is H.R. 2477, the Urban Forests Act of 2021, a
    bipartisan bill introduced by Representative Malliotakis from
    New York. Urban forests are important sources of carbon
    sequestration and sequestered nearly 130 million tons of carbon
    in 2018. The Urban Forests Act of 2021 would enhance and
    maintain these forests while helping create new jobs focused on
    new wood products and forest management.
        Next, H.R. 2500, the Forest TECH Improvement Act,
    introduced by Representative Moore of Utah, aims to improve the
    pace and scale of reforestation efforts via new technologies
    like drones and advanced GIS mapping technologies.
        Third, H.R. 2562, the SOS for Seedlings Act, introduced by
    Representative Bentz, addresses the significant U.S. seedling
    shortage by providing critical direction to the U.S. Forest
    Service to develop a comprehensive seedling strategy and
    increasing resources for Federal, state, Tribal, local, and
    private nurseries. If the United States is to both become a
    global leader in reforestation and address the reforestation
    needs driven by catastrophic wildfire, we must dramatically
    scale up our current U.S. nursery capacity.
        Last, but not least, is H.R. 2581, the BIOCHAR Act,
    introduced by Representative Herrell. Biochar is an emerging
    carbon sequestration tool with exciting potential to sequester
    carbon from biomass for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.
    Biochar, which is produced by heating biomass in the absence of
    oxygen, also has a litany of other environmental benefits
    ranging from improved forest health and resiliency,
    agricultural productivity, environmental remediation, water
    quality improvement and retention, and improved soil health.
    This bill would create a new demonstration projects for biochar
    to improve its commercialization as well as new applied
    research and development programs to test its applicability in
    a variety of sectors.
        To quote something Ranking Member Thompson frequently says,
    ``The 2018 Farm Bill was the greenest farm bill in history.'' I
    believe that if we don't pass these bills as stand-alone
    beforehand, the inclusion of the Trillion Trees Act and the
    additional bills I mentioned can help make the 2023 Farm Bill
    even greener and provide a benefit to both the environment and
    the economy.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today.
    Again, as Ranking Member of the Natural Resources Committee, I
    am committed to working with you to advance meaningful,
    bipartisan conservation and forestry legislation that will
    improve the lives of Americans across the nation. Thank you,
    and I yield back.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Westerman follows:]

        Prepared Statement of Hon. Bruce Westerman, a Representative in
                             Congress from Arkansas
        Thank you, Chairman Scott, and Ranking Member Thompson for the
    opportunity to testify today. As Ranking Member of the House Committee
    on Natural Resources, I enjoy working closely with you both on our
    mutual goals of conserving the environment and ensuring the prosperity
    of rural America.
        Mr. Chairman, our nation is blessed with an abundance of natural
    resources. We have the responsibility to manage and utilize these
    resources in ways that allow them to flourish for future generations. I
    firmly believe that the healthiest, most resilient environment is one
    which scientifically balances both the needs of the land with the needs
    of the people living connected to the land. True conservation utilizes
    innovative new approaches to maximize utility and access to our lands,
    while ensuring their long-term health.
        One piece of bipartisan legislation that exemplifies these
    principles of conservation and innovation is H.R. 2639, the ``Trillion
    Trees Act,'' which I re-introduced this past April. The bill is
    endorsed by over 50 stakeholder organizations and currently has 96
    bipartisan cosponsors. My bill would improve our nation's forestlands
    and establish the U.S. as a leader of the global One Trillion Trees
    Initiative by incentivizing improved regeneration, management, and
    utilization of our forests.
        Studies show planting and restoring one trillion trees globally
    would sequester 205 gigatons of carbon, an amount equivalent to \2/3\
    of all the carbon remaining in the atmosphere. We currently have over
    400 parts per million of carbon in the atmosphere, and the American
    people are demanding that Congress take practical action to address
    this issue. Natural climate solutions like the Trillion Trees Act must
    be our future as we seek commonsense, innovative ways to address
    atmospheric carbon.
        House Natural Resources Republicans held [a] forum on the bill in
    celebration of Arbor Day, where representatives from Walmart, the
    National Wildlife Federation, the National Alliance of Forest Owners,
    and University of Idaho testified in strong support of the bill. During
    this Forum, witnesses highlighted the both the economic and carbon-
    storing benefits of sustainable forest products and global
    reforestation initiatives. As this Committee works to identify
    practical, pro-growth carbon solutions, I hope that the House
    Agriculture Committee will hold an official hearing on the ''Trillion
    Trees Act.''
        Additionally, I would like to highlight several bills which were
    included in the ``Trillion Trees Act,'' but were also introduced as
    standalone pieces of legislation referred to this Committee:
        The first is H.R. 2477, the ``Urban Forests Act of 2021,'' a
    bipartisan bill introduced by Representative Malliotakis. Urban forests
    are important sources of carbon sequestration and sequestered nearly
    130 million metric tons of carbon in 2018. The Urban Forests Act of
    2021 would enhance and maintain these forests while helping create new
    jobs focused on new wood products and forest management.
        Next, H.R. 2500, the ``Forest TECH Improvement Act,'' introduced by
    Representative Moore of Utah, aims to improve the pace and scale of
    reforestation efforts via new technologies like drones and advanced GIS
    mapping technologies.
        Third, H.R. 25[62], the ``SOS for Seedlings Act,'' introduced by
    Representative Bentz, addresses the significant U.S. seedling shortage
    by providing critical direction to the U.S. Forest Service to develop a
    comprehensive seedling strategy and increasing resources for Federal,
    state, Tribal, local and private nurseries. If the United States is to
    both become a global leader in reforestation and address the
    reforestation needs driven by catastrophic wildfire, we must
    dramatically scale up our current U.S. nursery capacity.
        Last, but not least, is H.R. 2581, the ``BIOCHAR Act,'' introduced
    by Representative Herrell. Biochar is an emerging carbon sequestration
    tool with exciting potential to sequester carbon for hundreds of years.
    Biochar, which is produced by burning biomass in the absence of oxygen,
    also has a litany of other environmental benefits ranging from improved
    forest health arid resiliency, agricultural productivity, environmental
    remediation, water quality improvement and retention, and improved soil
    health. This bill would create a new demonstration projects for biochar
    to improve its commercialization as well as new applied research and
    development programs to test its applicability in a variety of sectors.
        To quote something Ranking Member Thompson frequently says, ``The
    2018 Farm Bill was the greenest farm bill in history.'' I believe that
    the inclusion of the Trillion Trees Act and the additional bills I
    mentioned can help make the 2023 Farm Bill even greener and provide a
    benefit to both the environment and the economy.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today. As Ranking
    Member of the Natural Resources Committee, I am committed to working
    with you all to advance meaningful, bipartisan conservation and
    forestry legislation that will improve the lives of Americans across
    the nation. Thank you, and I yield back.
                             Submitted Legislation
      1.  H.R. 2639, Trillion Trees Act: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/
                pkg/BILLS-117hr2639ih/pdf/BILLS-117hr2639ih.pdf (See p.
                240).

      2.  H.R. 2477, Urban Forests Act of 2021: https://www.govinfo.gov/
                content/pkg/BILLS-117hr2477ih/pdf/BILLS-117hr2477ih.pdf
                (See p. 201).

      3.  H.R. 2500, Forest Technology Enhancements for Conservation and
                Habitat Improvement Act (Forest TECH Improvement Act):
                https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-117hr2500ih/pdf/
                BILLS-117hr2500
                ih.pdf (See p. 213).

      4.  H.R. 2562, Solving Our Shortages for Seedlings Act (SOS for
                Seedlings Act): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-
                117hr2562ih/pdf/BILLS-117hr2562ih.pdf (See p. 224).

      5.  H.R. 2581, Biochar Innovations and Opportunities for
                Conservation, Health, and Advancements in Research Act of
                2021 (BIOCHAR Act of 2021): https://www.govinfo.gov/
                content/pkg/BILLS-117hr2581ih/pdf/BILLS-117hr2581ih.pdf
                (See p. 229).

        The Chairman. Yes. Well, thank you very much,
    Representative Westerman, and your comments are quite timely.
    As you know, dealing with climate change is one of this
    Committee's foremost issues, and the foresters play a very
    important role in that. Many people may not know that Georgia
    is the number one state for privately owned forestlands, and so
    I am very much aware of the vital role that our forestry
    friends have played over the years, but none more than right
    now as we are grappling with carbon sequestration and dealing
    with how we make sure that we are able to deal adequately with
    agriculture at the forefront of this nation's policies dealing
    with climate change.
        Next, we will hear from Ms. Malliotakis--I hope I got that
    right--from New York.

       STATEMENT OF HON. NICOLE MALLIOTAKIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                         CONGRESS FROM NEW YORK

        Ms. Malliotakis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you,
    Ranking Member Thompson, and also thank you to Congressman
    Westerman who really set up my opportunity to speak perfectly
    by also plugging my bill, the Urban Forest Act.
        I would like to take this opportunity to come before you
    today and present my testimony regarding a bipartisan piece of
    legislation that I introduced, H.R. 2477, the Urban Forests
    Act. Urban forests are important sources of carbon
    sequestration, as was just mentioned by you, Mr. Chairman, and
    have already sequestered nearly 130 million metric tons of
    carbon in 2018.
        In addition to carbon sequestration, urban forests also
    provide numerous other benefits to communities including job
    creation, reduction in air pollution and stormwater runoff,
    mitigation of the heat island effect, and reductions in home
    energy costs for consumers. This multitude of benefits means
    that for every $1 invested in urban forestry, it can provide $2
    to $4 in return.
        So, how can we take advantage of these benefits? Well, my
    bill creates a competitive matching grant program based on the
    Arbor Day Foundation's Tree City USA Program to enhance and
    maintain urban forests, particularly for communities with low
    tree and environmental equity; supports local job creation
    through Job Corps by establishing Civilian Conservation Centers
    in urban areas to teach important technical skills related to
    urban forestry. It creates a new pilot project that
    incentivizes innovative products made from urban wood sources.
    It adds carbon sequestration as a goal of the Forest Service's
    Urban and Community Forestry Program and to the Ten-Year Urban
    Forestry Action Plan. This bill also reauthorizes the National
    Urban and Community Forestry Advisory Council, increases the
    authorization of appropriations for the Urban and Community
    Forestry Program to $50 million for 5 years. It also improves
    data collected on urban forests through the Forest Inventory
    and Analysis Program, and coordinates existing urban forestry
    programs and research areas between different departments and
    agencies.
        At a time when we are really seeking to work in a
    bipartisan fashion on this issue of climate change, this is one
    particular bill which I am very proud to have the cosponsors
    from east to west of our country, from Alaska to Hawaii. It is
    cosponsored by Reps. Sanford Bishop of Georgia, Bruce Westerman
    of Arkansas, Don Young of Alaska, Kurt Schrader of Oregon, Joe
    Morelle of New York, and Ed Case of Hawaii. We have four
    Democrats and two Republicans currently cosponsoring this bill
    with me, and I welcome all the Members on the Committee to
    please add their names. I would really strongly urge and
    appreciate if you could help, Mr. Chairman, to move this
    through the Committee process.
        Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Malliotakis follows:]

      Prepared Statement of Hon. Nicole Malliotakis, a Representative in
                             Congress from New York
        Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Thompson:

        I would like to thank you for the opportunity to come before you
    today and present my testimony regarding a bipartisan piece of
    legislation I introduced--H.R. 2477 the Urban Forests Act. Urban
    forests are important sources of carbon sequestration and have already
    sequestered nearly 130 million metric tons of carbon in 2018. In
    addition to carbon sequestration, urban forests also provide numerous
    other benefits to communities including job creation, reduction in air
    pollution and stormwater runoff, mitigation of the heat island effect,
    and reductions in home energy costs for consumers. This multitude of
    benefits means that for every $1 invested in urban forestry, it can
    provide $2-$4 in returns.
        The Urban Forests Act of 2021:

       Creates a competitive matching grant program based on the
            Arbor Day Foundation's Tree City USA Program to enhance and
            maintain urban forests, particularly for communities with low
            tree or environmental equity.

       Supports local job creation through Job Corps by
            establishing Civilian Conservation Centers in urban areas to
            teach important technical skills related to urban forestry.

       Creates a new pilot project that incentivizes innovative
            products made from urban wood sources.

       Adds carbon sequestration as a goal of the Forest Service's
            Urban and Community Forestry Program and to the Ten-Year Urban
            Forestry Action Plan.

       Reauthorizes the National Urban and Community Forestry
            Advisory Council[.] Increases the authorization of
            appropriations for the Urban and Community Forestry Program to
            $50 million for 5 years.

       Improves data collected on urban forests through the Forest
            Inventory and Analysis Program[.] Coordinates existing urban
            forestry programs and research areas between different
            departments and agencies.

        Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, our constituents are asking for
    solutions. The Urban Forests Act may not fix the issue of climate
    change, but it most certainly a bipartisan step in the right direction
    and should be part of the larger global conversation. This legislation
    has received support from the National Association of State Foresters
    and the Arbor Day Foundation.
        I look forward to working with you and thank you for your time.
        I yield back.
                             Submitted Legislation
      1.  H.R. 2477, Urban Forests Act of 2021: https://www.govinfo.gov/
                content/pkg/BILLS-117hr2477ih/pdf/BILLS-117hr2477ih.pdf
                (See p. 201).

        The Chairman. Thank you so much, Congresslady, and you are
    very right. I think your bill is getting good traction. I am
    well aware of it, and we look forward to working with you on
    the Urban Forest Act, House Bill 2471----
        Ms. Malliotakis. 77.
        The Chairman.--and if--pardon me?
        Ms. Malliotakis. H.R. 2477, and Mr. Chairman, I would love
    if you would consider sponsoring it yourself as well. Thank you
    so much for your time.
        The Chairman. H.R. 2477. Thank you for that. I really
    appreciate it.
        And that goes with our no-till farming, our cover crops.
    These are things that we in agriculture can do and take the
    lead in bringing down so much carbon in the air and getting it
    back in the ground where we need it. So, thank you for that,
    and I look forward to seeing this bill move.
        Next, we have, I believe, Representative Kahele from
    Hawaii.

    STATEMENT OF HON. KAIALI`I KAHELE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                              FROM HAWAII

        Mr. Kahele. Aloha Chairman Scott, aloha Members, Ranking
    Member Thompson, and Members of the Committee on Agriculture.
    Mahalo for hosting today's bipartisan Member Day hearing.
        Mr. Chairman, agriculture in Hawaii is its third-largest
    industry consisting of predominantly small, family-owned
    operations that generate more than $1 billion in revenue
    annually. These operations create businesses and job
    opportunities and help keep our rural communities vibrant.
    Hawaii leads the nation in the production of Kona coffee,
    macadamia, ginger root, pineapples, bananas, taro, passion
    fruit, and our floriculture industry generates more than $85
    million in revenue each year.
        Island geography, both within and between the Islands,
    restricts businesses in various ways related to the economics
    of operations. Fixed costs as a percentage of revenue are
    higher for transportation, labor, energy, land, input, and
    other operating expenses. Tropical and subtropical agriculture
    and year-round growing seasons make it very challenging to
    control insects, weeds, funguses, and plant diseases. And while
    many farmers embrace integrated pest management techniques,
    some are compelled to purchase expensive synthetic controls to
    limit crop losses from noxious species. Separation from land-
    grant universities and Federal research and development
    laboratories further inhibits acquiring new and innovative
    technologies in a timely manner. Additionally, Federal food
    programs such as the Women, Infant, and Children Farmers'
    Market Nutrition Program and the Senior Farmers' Market
    Nutrition Program have been invaluable. Still, much can be done
    to address the concerns and needs of Hawaii's and our nation's
    agricultural, rural communities.
        To address Hawaii's pressing agriculture needs, I first ask
    the Committee to modernize Federal agriculture research
    facilities and commit to a business plan to address land-grant
    university research infrastructures. Our Hawaii research
    facilities at the Daniel K. Inouye Pacific Basin Agriculture
    Research Center in my hometown of Hilo, and the University of
    Hawaii College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources,
    otherwise known as CTAHR, are crucial to controlling tropical
    agricultural insects, weeds, funguses, and plant diseases.
    Second, I ask the Committee to examine ways to simplify the
    application process for small producers under the Micro-Grants
    for Food Security Program and increase the authorization level
    for the MGFSP to $20 million. Third, I ask the Committee to
    expand food hubs, food banks, community supported agriculture,
    and food pantries in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. In
    Hawaii, these programs provided fresh fruits, vegetables, and
    protein to consumers in need, but they also helped stabilize
    local farms by creating a demand for produce. Given Hawaii's
    small-scale farm operations, food hubs, CSAs, and other outlets
    which are very critical for food producers to sell their crops
    at a fair market price.
        Last, as Congress works to reauthorize the Farm Bill in
    2023, I ask the Committee to establish in the 2023 Farm Bill a
    program dedicated to area-wide integrated pest management. AIPM
    techniques are the basis of the successful coffee berry borer
    program. I will continue communicating Hawaii's priorities with
    the Committee as you work on the 2023 Farm Bill.
        I look forward to working with all of you. I wish I was on
    the Agriculture Committee, Mr. Chairman. Hopefully, if I get to
    come back, I get another chance. But I look forward to working
    with you to strengthen our nation's farm programs.
        I just want to Mahalo all of you for your commitment to
    helping our farmers throughout the nation and in the Hawaiian
    Islands.
        Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Kahele follows:]

        Prepared Statement of Hon. Kaiali`i Kahele, a Representative in
                              Congress from Hawaii
        Aloha Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Thompson, and Members of the
    Committee. Mahalo for hosting today's bipartisan Member Day hearing.
        Agriculture is Hawai'i's third-largest industry consisting of
    predominantly small, family-owned operations that generate more than $1
    billion in revenue annually. These operations create business and job
    opportunities and help keep our rural communities vibrant. Hawai'i
    leads the nation in the production of coffee, macadamia, ginger root,
    pineapples, bananas, taro, and passion fruit, and our floriculture
    industry generates more than $85 million in revenue each year.
        Island geography, both within and between Islands, restricts
    businesses in various ways related to the economics of operations.
    Fixed costs as a percentage of revenue are higher for transportation,
    labor, energy, land, input, and other operating expenses. Tropical and
    subtropical agriculture and year-round growing seasons make it
    challenging to control insects, weeds, funguses, and plant diseases.
    While many farmers embrace integrated pest management techniques, some
    are compelled to purchase expensive synthetic controls to limit crop
    losses from noxious species. Separation from land-grant universities
    and Federal Research and Development Laboratories further inhibits
    acquiring new and innovative technologies in a timely manner.
    Additionally, Federal food programs such as the Women, Infant, and
    Children Farmers' Market Nutrition Program and the Senior Farmers'
    Market Nutrition Program have been invaluable. Still, much can be done
    to address the concerns and needs of Hawai'i's and our nation's
    agricultural, rural communities.
        To address Hawai'i's pressing agriculture needs, I first ask the
    Committee to modernize Federal agriculture research facilities and
    commit to a business plan to address land-grant university research
    infrastructures. Our Hawai'i research facilities at the Daniel K.
    Inouye Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center and the University of
    Hawai'i College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources are crucial
    to controlling tropical agriculture insects, weeds, funguses, and plant
    diseases. Second, I ask the Committee to examine ways to simplify the
    application process for small producers under the Micro-Grants for Food
    Security Program (MGFSP) and increase the authorization level for the
    MGFSP to $20 million. Third, I ask that the Committee expand food hubs,
    food banks, community support[ed] agriculture (CSA), and food pantries
    in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. In Hawai'i, these programs
    provided fresh fruits, vegetables, and protein to consumers in need,
    but they also helped stabilize local farms by creating a demand for
    produce. Given Hawai'i's small-scale farm operations, food hubs, CSAs,
    and other outlets are critical demand-side outlets for food producers
    to sell their crops at a fair market price.
        Last, as Congress works to reauthorize the Farm Bill in 2023, I ask
    the Committee to establish in the 2023 Farm Bill a program dedicated to
    area-wide integrated pest management (AIPM).
        AIPM techniques are the basis of the successful coffee berry borer
    program. I will continue communicating Hawai'i's priorities with the
    Committee as you work on the 2023 Farm Bill.
        I look forward to working closely with you to strengthen our
    nation's farm programs. Mahalo for your commitment to helping our
    farmers nationally and in Hawai'i.

        The Chairman. Well, thank you, Mr. Representative Kahele,
    for your excellent presentation, and we would certainly enjoy
    having you on our Agriculture Committee. I think you made some
    very good points there, and as you know, our 1890s, our land-
    grant colleges and universities are playing a vital role, and
    we will certainly look favorably on your efforts to be included
    with your land-grant universities that you mentioned in Hawaii.
    And the food banks, we can't say enough for how they are
    responding to this, as you know, we had a hearing on food
    security and had our food banks in, and we are going to be
    doing more to make sure our feeding America is very much
    inclusive with Hawaii.
        So, next we have Representative Lawson from the great State
    of Florida, and a graduate of one of our land-grant schools, as
    I am. My friend and fellow alumni from the great Florida A&M
    University.

    STATEMENT OF HON. AL LAWSON, Jr., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                              FROM FLORIDA

        Mr. Lawson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is an honor to be
    with you today, and to you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
    Thompson, I want to thank you all for your leadership on the
    Agriculture Committee.
        You know, today I would like to address, Mr. Chairman, two
    bills that I have introduced that falls under the Committee
    jurisdiction, and I am asking for swift passage. The first one,
    Mr. Chairman, is through the Food Security Act of 2021, that is
    H.R. 3100.
        Sadly, in every corner, in almost every community around
    the nation, families are impacted by food insecurity. I heard
    you talk about it a few minutes ago. I have been diligent in
    finding solutions to eradicate hunger. One of the most
    important ways to tackle hunger in this country is by focusing
    on how it impacts various subpopulations of our communities,
    such as veterans, seniors, and college students.
        This is why for the past two Congresses I have introduced
    the College Student Hunger Act, and why this year I am proud to
    be a lead cosponsor with Congresswoman Hayes and Congresswoman
    Norma Torres for the Student Food Security Act.
        A recent Government Accountability Office report revealed
    that more than 30 percent of college students might face food
    insecurity, and I know that is for a fact. The report also
    found that almost two million at-risk students are potentially
    eligible for SNAP benefits in 2016. The nontraditional college
    student is now the traditional college students that we need to
    have just as much concern for our community college and part-
    time students as we do with our large, 4 year universities.
        The bill removed barriers to low-income college students in
    accessing SNAP benefits by expanding the eligibility criteria.
    The bill also enabled the Federal Government, state colleges,
    and universities to take a more proactive role in providing
    outreach and support to food-insecure students. HBCUs and other
    minority serving institutions would also receive priority.
        I had the opportunity to visit food pantries on university
    campuses and see not only do they distribute food to a lot of
    students, but they even show a lot of them how to prepare the
    food, which is so critically important.
        I urge the Committee to take up this bill because it would
    do a great deal in helping a lot of low-income students and
    nontraditional students that we have on campus today.
        The APEX Act which is one, H.R. 2698, I have introduced,
    bipartisan, Aluminum Pricing Examination Act for the second
    time in Congress because the aluminum market has experienced
    unprecedented cost fluctuating that disconnected from market
    fundamentals since the beginning of 2018. The bill normally
    stems from pricing spikes and sole reference prices on users of
    sheet aluminum, the Midwest Premium--call it the MWP. The MWP
    is intended to serve as a shipping and handling cost for
    transporting aluminum for a producer to the end-user has more
    than doubled since the beginning of 2018. The unforeseeable
    price variation has added hundreds of millions of dollars in
    cost to the end-user and increased the price of soda, beer, and
    other household goods for our constituents.
        The APEX Act grants the Commodity Futures Trading
    Commission proper statutory authority to conduct oversight of
    an investigative price setting and reporting entities in the
    aluminum market. APEX also provides the Department of Justice
    the ability to consult with the CFTC to ensure all oversight
    and regulatory actions are in accordance with the antitrust
    statute. Additionally, the legislation affords the Attorney
    General the opportunity to formally comment on the proposed
    CFTC regulation action and guideline. Nothing in this
    legislation--and I will repeat again, nothing in this
    legislation allows for price setting by the government.
        Again, I thank you for the opportunity to bring this before
    the Committee.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Lawson follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Hon. Al Lawson, Jr., a Representative in Congress
                                  from Florida
    Student Food Security Act of 2021
       Sadly every comer and almost every community in our nation
            is, one way or another, impacted by food insecurity.

       I have been passionate in finding solutions to eradicate
            hunger not only in Florida's Fifth Congressional District, but
            through the Sunshine State and the nation.

       One of the most important ways to tackle hunger is by
            focusing on how it impacts various subpopulations of our
            communities such as veterans, seniors, and college students.

          This is why for the past two Congresses I have introduced the
            College Student Hunger Act and why this year I am proud to be a
            lead cosponsor, with Chairwoman Hayes and Rep. Norma Torres, of
            the Student Food Security Act of 2021.
    Facts on Food Insecurity among College Student Populations in the
            United States
       A recent Government Accountability Office report revealed
            that more than 30% of college students might face food
            insecurity.

       The report also found that almost two million at-risk
            students who are potentially eligible for SNAP benefits in
            2016.

       The nontraditional college student is now the traditional
            student.

       We need to have just as much concern for our community
            college and part-time college students as we do with our large
            4 year universities.

        What this bill does: remove barriers to low-income college students
    in accessing SNAP benefits by expanding the eligibility criteria. This
    bill will also enable the Federal Government, states, colleges and
    universities to take a more proactive role in providing outreach and
    support to food-insecure students.
    The Student Food Security Act
      1.  Increases low-income college students' eligibility for SNAP by
                expanding eligibility to students who are eligible for work
                study, have a $0 Expected Family Contribution, meet the
                financial eligibility criteria for a maximum Pell Grant
                (even if they have not filed the FAFSA), or are an
                independent student whose household is otherwise eligible.

      2.  Increases outreach to eligible students by directing the
                Department of Education to work with the Department of
                Agriculture and other relevant agencies to notify students
                that they may be eligible for benefits when they file their
                application for Federal student aid.

      3.  Requires the Department of Education to collect data on food and
                housing insecurity.

      4.  Creates a SNAP student hunger demonstration program that would
                allow students to use their SNAP benefits at on-campus
                dining facilities at up to ten institutions.

      5.  Establishes a $1 billion per year grant program to help
                institutions of higher education identify and meet the food
                and housing security of their students. Grants can be used
                for research, planning, and implementation of a strategy to
                conduct outreach to students and coordinate resources. At
                least 33% of grants must go to community colleges, and
                institutions with high percentages of Pell recipients,
                Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), and
                other Minority-Serving Institutions will also receive
                priority.
    APEX ACT
        The Problem:

       The aluminum market has experienced unprecedented cost
            fluctuations that are disconnected from market fundamentals
            since the beginning of 2018.

       These anomalies stem from pricing spikes in the sole
            reference price on end-users of sheet aluminum, the Midwest
            Premium (MWP).

       The MWP, which is intended to serve as a ``shipping and
            handling'' cost for transporting aluminum from a producer to
            end-user, has more than doubled since the beginning of 2018.

       The unforeseen price variations have added hundreds of
            millions of dollars in cost to end-users and increased the
            price of soda, beer, and other household goods for our
            constituents.

        What This Bill Does

       The Aluminum Pricing Examination (APEX) Act grants the
            [Commodity] Futures Trading Commission's (CFTC) proper
            statutory authority to conduct oversight of and investigate
            price setting and reporting entities in the aluminum market.

       The APEX Act also provides the Department of Justice (DOJ)
            the ability to consult with the CFTC to ensure all oversight
            and regulatory actions are in accordance with antitrust
            statutes.

       Additionally, the legislation affords the Attorney General
            the opportunity to formally comment on any proposed CFTC
            regulatory action or guideline.

       Nothing in this legislation allows for price setting by the
            government.
                             Submitted Legislation
      1.  H.R. 3100, Student Food Security Act of 2021: https://
                www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-117hr3100ih/pdf/BILLS-
                117hr3100ih.pdf (See p. 352).

      2.  H.R. 2698, Aluminum Pricing Examination Act (APEX Act): https://
                www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-117hr2698ih/pdf/BILLS-
                117hr26
                98ih.pdf (See p. 346).

        The Chairman. Well, thank you, Congressman Lawson. You
    mentioned in your presentation that 30 percent of students face
    food insecurity. Could you tell me what that study was again?
        Mr. Lawson. It was a recent Government Accountability
    Office report, and so, I would have to get information on that
    back to you. I had this information on hand from the last--and
    I thought it was very significant. I probably should write the
    study down, but I will get the study to you.
        The Chairman. And you also mentioned----
        Mr. Lawson. Yes, it was a Government Accountability Office
    study.
        The Chairman. Okay, that is fine. It might be helpful to
    us, because this supports your H.R. 3100, is that right?
        Mr. Lawson. That is correct.
        The Chairman. Okay, and it impacts and deals with
    particularly hunger facing our veterans, our seniors, and
    college students.
        Mr. Lawson. That is correct.
        The Chairman. All right, very good. I think that is
    something that we need to move swiftly on, and that study would
    be very helpful in boosting and making sure we get your bill
    moving. So, I look forward to working with you on that.
        [The report referred to is located on p. 421.]
        The Chairman. Now, we will hear from Representative Ronny
    Jackson from Texas.

     STATEMENT OF HON. RONNY JACKSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                               FROM TEXAS

        Mr. Jackson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member
    Thompson for holding this hearing today and giving Members like
    myself a chance to have their voices heard.
        I just want to reiterate as well, I talked to Ranking
    Member Thompson about this before, sir, but I, too, someday
    want to be in the near future at the first opportunity would
    like to be on the Committee as well. I have made that a
    priority of mine during my time in Congress, however long that
    should be.
        Anyway, as you know, sir, agriculture issues are a top
    priority for me and my constituents, as I represent the number
    one ag district in the State of Texas, and the sixth overall ag
    district in the United States. Texas's 13th Congressional
    District is a top producer of cattle, cotton, wheat, dairy, and
    much more, and I could not be prouder to speak on behalf of the
    farmers and ranchers who make that possible in my district.
        Unfortunately, these hard-working Americans have battled
    numerous hardships over the past few years due to tariff
    issues, market turmoil, disruptions caused by COVID-19, and
    most recently, the disastrous weather events like the polar
    vortex that struck Texas earlier this year.
        The Chairman. I think--check your mute.
        Mr. Jackson. Sorry about that, sir.
        In an effort to help farmers to recover from these natural
    disasters, I introduced H.R. 1692, the RESTORE Act
    (Rehabilitating Economic Success Through Overcoming Rural
    Emergencies Act), with my friend and colleague, Representative
    Henry Cuellar. This bipartisan legislation would reauthorize
    the Wildfire Hurricane Indemnity Program, the WHIP Program, for
    2020 and 2021, and it would expand the program to cover crop
    losses due to freezes and polar vortexes. This bill would also
    increase coverage for droughts to ensure that all droughts are
    covered as natural disasters under the WHIP Program, a
    provision that will immensely help cotton producers across the
    country.
        Mr. Chairman, I come before the Committee today to urge
    consideration for the RESTORE Act, to help extend a valuable
    lifeline for the men and women who tirelessly work to feed our
    great nation. This is an excellent opportunity to foster
    bipartisanship and to support our farmers throughout this
    tumultuous time.
        I want to thank you again for holding this hearing and for
    allowing me to present this legislation before your Committee.
    I look forward to working with each of you on these issues in a
    bipartisan and effective manner.
        With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Jackson follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Hon. Ronny Jackson, a Representative in Congress
                                   from Texas
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman and [Ranking Member] Thompson for holding
    this hearing today and giving Members like myself a chance to have
    their voices heard.
        As you all may know, agriculture issues are a top priority for me
    and my constituents, as I represent the number one agriculture district
    in Texas, and the sixth overall agriculture district in the United
    States.
        Texas's 13th Congressional District is a top producer of cattle,
    cotton, wheat, dairy, and much more, and I could not be prouder to
    speak to you on behalf of the farmers and ranchers who make that
    possible.
        Unfortunately, these hard-working Americans have battled numerous
    hardships over the past few years due to market turmoil, disruptions
    caused by COVID-19, and, most recently, disastrous weather events like
    the polar vortex which struck Texas earlier this year.
        In an effort to help farmers to recover from these natural
    disasters, I introduced H.R. 1692, the RESTORE Act, with my friend and
    colleague, Representative Henry Cuellar.
        This bipartisan legislation would reauthorize the Wildfire
    Hurricane Indemnity Program (WHIP) for 2020 and 2021, and it would
    expand the program to cover crop losses due to freezes and polar
    vortexes.
        This bill would also increase coverage for droughts to ensure that
    all droughts are covered as natural disasters under the WHIP Program, a
    provision that will immensely help cotton producers across the country.
        Mr. Chairman, I come before the Committee today to urge
    consideration of the RESTORE Act, to help extend a valuable lifeline
    for the men and women who tirelessly work to feed our great nation.
        This is an excellent opportunity to faster bipartisanship and to
    support our farmers throughout this tumultuous time.
    Conclusion
        Thank you again for holding this hearing and for allowing me to
    present this legislation before the Committee.
        I look forward to working with each of you on these issues in a
    bipartisan and effective manner.
        With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
                             Submitted Legislation
      1.  H.R. 1692, Rehabilitating Economic Success Through Overcoming
                Rural Emergencies Act (RESTORE Act): https://
                www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-117hr1692ih/pdf/BILLS-
                117hr1692ih.pdf (See p. 168).

        The Chairman. Thank you very much, Congressman Jackson, and
    your RESTORE Act, let me just tell you, this is an issue that
    we are grappling with on Committee as I speak. Disaster aid is
    so critical, and we, as everyone knows, I am trying to put
    together an effort to create a separate, immediate disaster aid
    fund so it doesn't have to go through the regular appropriation
    process. It just takes too long, and many of our farms are done
    away with because we moved too slow. And so, we are working on
    a bill to set up a permanent disaster aid that is already there
    that we can get help down to our farms in their time of need.
    And we saw what happened in your great State of Texas. This
    climate is causing us to really come up with your challenges
    here.
        So, I look forward to it, and you too would be welcome to
    join our Committee, and we will speak on it. At the rate we are
    going, we might need to expand our numbers. But we welcome you.
    I often tell everybody this is our single-most important
    Committee. It is the food we eat, the clothes we wear, the
    water we drink, and our shelter. We can do without a lot of
    things, but we cannot do without food, water, clothing, and our
    shelter.
        So, madam, is there anyone else? Okay. Before we adjourn,
    let me just ask is there anyone else that may have come in,
    missed, didn't hear? This has been wonderful, and we appreciate
    it.
        But before we adjourn, I want to invite our Ranking Member
    to make any closing remarks that he would like to make, and
    look forward to hearing from our Ranking Member. Ranking Member
    Thompson, you are recognized.
        Mr. Thompson. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much. Thank you to
    all the Members that testified. We heard from ten Members today
    with their verbal testimony, and quite frankly, they touched on
    a lot of important issues that are facing rural America, our
    farmers and ranchers, our food processors, all those within the
    agriculture supply chain.
        Mr. Chairman, we have a lot of good information. There are
    some very specific bills that have been introduced that are
    within our jurisdiction, which is exciting as well, that tackle
    and takes on many of these issues. So, I just want to say thank
    you to you, and certainly to all of the Members who took the
    time to prepare and to present and to share with our Committee.
    I think this informs us, going forward, so that we can proceed
    and continue our shared passion and goal to do our very best
    for rural America and for the folks who provide us our food,
    our feed, and our fiber.
        So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        The Chairman. Well, thank you, Ranking Member, and I agree
    with you 100 percent. It has been a very, very thoughtful, good
    presentations, and we got some great Members out there, both on
    the Committee and those that, as you see, Mr. Chairman, and
    heard, there are others that want to be on this Committee with
    us. And so, we certainly welcome that.
        And, I just want to thank all of you for taking the time.
    Our staff has been here recording and making sure that your
    inputs have been heard, and we certainly stand ready to help
    each of these Members in the forward progress of their issues
    and their concerns, because they are all of our concerns.
        And so, with that, under the Rules of the Committee, the
    record of today's hearing will remain open for 10 calendar days
    to receive supplementary material from any Member who
    testified, or offered written testimony today.
        So, now this hearing of the Committee on Agriculture is
    adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:13 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
        [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
       Submitted Letter of Hon. Jodey C. Arrington, a Representative in
                              Congress from Texas
    May 28, 2021

        Chairman Scott and Ranking Member Thompson:

        Thank you for providing Members the opportunity to share our
    priorities for the 117th Congress. As a former Member of the House
    Agriculture Committee, I know firsthand the important role of this
    Committee and the responsibility you have to support our nation's
    farmers and ranchers. As the Representative of a rural district, my top
    priority is to champion policies which protect and promote a strong,
    vibrant, and secure food supply chain.
        No other region in the world produces more food, fuel, or fiber
    than west Texas. In fact, my district is home to more than 14 million
    acres of farmland and generates over $12 billion in agriculture related
    revenue. Our producers are not only the backbone of our economy, but
    the epicenter of America's food supply and security.
        One issue of immediate importance to farmers in my district, is the
    need to extend the Wildfire Hurricane Indemnity Program (WHIP) to cover
    2020 and 2021 losses. Congress authorized supplemental assistance to
    producers for 2017, 2018, and 2019 due to historic and widespread
    production losses experienced due to severe weather. I urge the
    Committee to quickly extend WHIP to cover 2020 and 2021 losses,
    including those due to the worsening nationwide drought.
        Given the essential, yet volatile nature of the agriculture
    industry, it is critical Congress consistently provides our producers
    access to the personnel and safety nets they need. As we work to lay
    the groundwork for the next farm bill, it is important that future
    legislation defends our existing safety nets, like Price Loss Coverage
    (PLC) and the Livestock Indemnity Program (LIP), as well as develops
    permanent solutions to ad hoc programs, like WHIP, which have become
    vital for producers across the nation.
        It must also address the Farm Service Agency (FSA) public health
    protocols relating to staffing levels which have kept local offices
    completely closed or minimally staffed for far too long. As a result,
    the review of applications for crucial relief programs has all but
    stopped in many offices and created significant backlog. These
    prolonged closures have limited producer's ability to apply for vital
    farm bill assistance programs, and therefore must be address[ed] by
    this Committee.
        I believe one of the greatest threats facing our producers and
    their livelihoods are extreme and unscientific environmental policies,
    like the Green New Deal and Waters of the United States (WOTUS), which
    target the agriculture industry. False narratives on agriculture's role
    in climate change not only deceive the public, but they distort the
    market and disrupt our food supply chain. No one cares more about
    natural resource stewardship or has more motivation to achieve greater
    sustainability than those farmers and ranchers whose livelihoods depend
    on it. This Committee must promote reasonable policies and reject over-
    regulation of an industry which is essential to our economic and
    national security interests.
        Unfortunately, anti-growth tax proposals have also become a
    formidable threat for agriculture families. President Biden's proposal
    to double the capital gains rate, while imposing it at death and over
    the appreciation of past generations is a threat to landowners and
    family-owned businesses across the country. For more than a century,
    producers have had to endure the punishing death tax, but to
    effectively create an additional death tax, is highly concerning and
    problematic. As a Member of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Select
    Revenue Measures, I will push back on any tax proposals that will harm
    American families, including family-owned farms and ranches.
        As a Member of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade, I look
    forward to working with the House Agriculture Committee to advance
    trade policy that prioritizes American producers. Due to the previous
    Administration's commitment to freer and fairer trade agreements, we
    have made significant market improvements through the China Phase One
    Agreement, U.S.-Japan Trade Agreement, and U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement
    (USMCA). It is imperative we continue to ensure American agricultural
    exporters, and many other sectors of our economy, receive the full
    benefit of the improved trade deals by vigilant enforcement.
    Additionally, we must be in constant pursuit of new global markets,
    including the United Kingdom, Kenya, and Asian Pacific nations, for our
    farmers and ranchers. With worldwide demand for food on the rise, we
    must ensure there is no one better equipped to lead the charge of
    feeding a hungry world than American producers.
        For our farmers and ranchers to access global markets, we must
    invest in critical infrastructure to ensure the safe and efficient
    transportation of products from farm to market. An imperative aspect of
    the ability to support the flow of goods is a healthy workforce. To
    safeguard our nation's ability to feed and fuel the world, we must
    ensure rural Americans have access to basic and affordable healthcare.
    Last, despite the gains made in the 2018 Farm Bill, millions of
    American farmers do not have access to reliable Internet. As the
    agriculture industry modernizes, broadband is increasingly important in
    all levels of production. We must close the digital divide by providing
    reliable broadband to all communities, rural and urban.
        For several years, our producers have experienced price declines,
    retaliatory tariffs, severe weather, drought, and other hardships that
    have been out of their control. Most recently, the COVID-19 pandemic
    has tested our supply chain resilience and reminded Americans that
    having an affordable and abundant supply of food, independent of
    foreign adversaries, is essential. We must support and promote American
    agriculture, and I look forward to working with you in these endeavors.
                Sincerely,

    Jodey C. Arrington,
    Member of Congress.
                                     ______

    Submitted Letter of Hon. Steve Cohen, a Representative in Congress from
                                   Tennessee
    May 18, 2021

        Chairman Scott:

        Thank you for allowing other Members of Congress to discuss our
    priorities that come before this Committee. With President Biden and
    the Democratic majorities, the 117th Congress has a unique opportunity
    to deliver for the American people. The 2020 elections were a mandate
    to overcome Washington's exhausting rhetoric, address systemic
    inequality, and deliver essential services so that everyone can prosper
    and enjoy equal protections regardless of their socioeconomic status,
    race, faith, sexual orientation, or [ZIP C]ode. To that end, I'm
    sharing the following bill, which ends discriminatory food assistance
    restrictions that harm the formerly incarcerated after their release.
    Ensuring affordable access to food for all groups is a critical issue
    for my constituents in Memphis and the American people. I look forward
    to working with your leadership to reach this much-needed reform.
        The [H.R. 2837,] Making Essentials Affordable and Lawful (MEAL)
    Act, which I introduced with Representatives Moore, Watson Coleman and
    Hayes, lifts food assistance restrictions for those with prior felony
    drug convictions. Annually, over 600,000 people are released from
    prisons in the United States. Current SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition
    Assistance Program) and TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families)
    policies prevent or restrict the formerly incarcerated from receiving
    food benefits. These policies disproportionately harm people of color
    and women, and especially the families and children of the formerly
    incarcerated. SNAP and TANF barriers also promote recidivism, impair
    substance use recovery efforts, and harm the long-term reentry of the
    formerly incarcerated. The MEAL Act eliminates these discriminatory and
    unfair practices. Specifically, this bill allows people with prior
    felony drug convictions to receive SNAP and TANF benefits without
    restrictions. The MEAL Act also codifies the United States Department
    of Agriculture (USDA) waiver that allows prisoners to apply for SNAP
    and TANF up to 30 days before they are released, ensuring that they can
    meet their basic needs as soon as they reenter society.
        As you know, these barriers disproportionately affect women and
    people of color, and families with children are especially harmed by
    this ban. Restoring access to these programs is critical in light of
    the COVID-19 pandemic and economic downturn.
        This bill has been endorsed by more than 50 civil rights, reentry,
    public health and faith-based organizations at the national and state
    level including the American Bar Association, Leadership Conference for
    Civil and Human Rights, NAACP, National Council of Churches and the
    Drug Policy Alliance.
        A portion of the bill is also included in President Biden's
    American Rescue Plan, which cites that ``denying these individuals--
    many of whom are parents of young children--SNAP benefits jeopardizes
    nutrition security and poses a barrier to re-entry into the community
    in a population that already faces significant hurdles to obtaining
    employment and stability.'' I believe the same rationale also holds for
    repealing the TANF ban and demonstrates why it is so important to get
    the MEAL Act enacted.
        Thank you, Chair[man] Scott, for the opportunity to discuss this
    critical matter for my district and the American people. I look forward
    to working with you on delivering a more just and equitable society for
    all.
                As always I remain,
                Most Sincerely,

    Steve Cohen,
    Member of Congress.
                             Submitted Legislation
      1.  H.R. 2837, Making Essentials Available and Lawful (MEAL) Act of
                2021: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-
                117hr2837ih/pdf/BILLS-117hr2837ih.pdf (See p. 349).
                                     ______

      Submitted Statement of Hon. Ron Estes, a Representative in Congress
                                  from Kansas
        Thank you, Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Thompson, and my
    colleagues for providing the opportunity to share with the House
    Agriculture Committee the concerns that are of utmost priority for
    Kansas' 4th District.
        During the coronavirus pandemic, the digital divide in our country
    has become more apparent. Affordable, dependable broadband access is
    necessary for the growth and development of rural communities. To
    combat this issue, consumer-owned electric cooperatives use RUS
    Electric Loans to finance electricity distribution, transmission, and
    generation to provide service to roughly 42 million consumers every
    day. These loans are repaid with interest and have an excellent track
    record of repayment. In 2019, U.S. Treasury received $219 million in
    electric loan payments.
        RUS Electric loans are used to build on infrastructure that would
    expand broadband for rural communities across the country. Improving
    rural connectivity paves a path for producers to farm smarter through
    precision agriculture. Precision agriculture ``does more with less,''
    aiding farmers in further conserving and becoming better stewards of
    their precious land. Moreover, improving broadband access results in
    better access to telemedicine, increased opportunity for businesses to
    engage with customers, and supplemental education for children in
    school. I am a proud supporter of the RUS Electric Loan Program.
        Another topic I would like to touch upon is the importance of
    research and development, specifically within the agricultural
    community. Crop genetics research is done in Kansas to enhance yields,
    fight diseases and pests, adapt to changing climates, and reduce global
    food insecurity. Ultimately, this type of research focused on utilizing
    ancient crop plant ancestors will mobilize genetic diversity, meet
    consumer demands, and protect the global food supply.
        Funding toward the Wheat Genetics Resource Center (WGRC) greatly
    benefits Kansas agriculture. WGRC allows Kansas to remain a top
    producer by providing the newest technology and knowledge available.
    This research, done in the heart of the Great Plains, allows Kansans to
    adopt sustainable practices, leaving their land in better shape than
    they found it.
        Thank you for the opportunity to share my perspective with the
    House Agriculture Committee. I am excited to move forward and
    collaborate with each of you as we stand up for our rural communities
    across the country.
                                     ______

    Submitted Statement of Hon. Bob Good, a Representative in Congress from
                                    Virginia
        Thank you, Chairman Scott, and Ranking Member Thompson for the
    opportunity to testify. As the Representative of Virginia's Fifth
    Congressional District, I look forward to working with you to help
    provide access to reliable broadband for rural communities.
        We stand at a unique point in our nation's history, with a wealth
    of resources at our fingertips in some regions of the country,
    meanwhile other regions have fallen behind due to a lack of broadband
    connectivity. For far too long, too many Americans have lacked access
    to the affordable, high-speed broadband services they need to
    participate in today's increasingly digital world.
        I agree with the Ranking Member's statement on April 20th: ``As
    more of American life is being put online, more of it is being put out
    of reach of Americans without high-speed Internet access, and those
    without are falling further behind.'' By bridging the widening digital
    divide, rural networks play a critical role in serving key parts of our
    economy, including farmers, and rural landowners.
        Past attempts to connect rural America have resulted in the
    allocation of substantial amounts of Federal funds for broadband
    deployment. Though these investments have been helpful contributions,
    we have not fully achieved the connectivity needed for success in the
    growing digital economy, The fundamental problem is too many government
    policies and burdensome regulations have stifled the ability to build-
    out our networks.
        As Congress considers legislation affecting farmers and rural
    communities, I hope the Committee will work to help bridge the digital
    divide to the over 23 million Americans who lack access to broadband,
    including nearly 50% of rural Virginians. Congress should prioritize
    reducing burdensome regulations to the deployment process, increasing
    access to existing infrastructure, and narrowly targeting existing
    funding to avoid wasteful spending.
        I thank Chairman Scott and Ranking Member Thompson again for the
    opportunity to testify. I look forward to working with the Committee to
    provide reliable access to broadband that is so desperately needed in
    our rural communities.
                                     ______

     Submitted Statement of Hon. Joe Neguse, a Representative in Congress
                                 from Colorado
        Thank you Chairman Scott and Ranking Member Thompson for the
    opportunity to testify regarding some of my priorities within the
    Agriculture Committee's jurisdiction.
    Civilian Climate Corps
        I'd first like to highlight one of my top priorities, the
    establishment of the Civilian Climate Corps. In 2020, Colorado has
    faced our fair share of challenges: a once-in-a-century pandemic,
    economic hardship, and historic wildfires. To address these
    unprecedented challenges, to make historic investments in wildfire
    suppression, mitigation, resiliency, and recovery and to restore our
    lands and our communities, I strongly support the creation of a
    reimagined 21st Century Civilian Climate Corps.
        That is why I introduced the Civilian Climate Corps Act (H.R.
    2241), alongside Congresswoman Spanberger and the 21st Century
    Conservation Corps Act, (H.R. 1162) with Representatives Kilmer,
    Lowenthal, Huffman, and Blumenauer. These bills seek to reimagine the
    conservation corps of the 1930's, a bold proposal that will put
    hundreds of thousands of Americans back to work and train the next
    generation of climate and resiliency workers to support our
    communities, by assisting our wildland firefighters with fire
    suppression; restoring our lands through road maintenance, trail
    restoration and construction; and reducing the public lands maintenance
    backlog. Our plan would invest in our local economies, supporting our
    outdoor recreation industry, expand access to the outdoors and support
    the lands that we love.
        The Civilian Climate Corps will prioritize equity and inclusion,
    help us tackle the climate crisis, put people back to work, and address
    wildfires in Colorado by providing the needed resources to our local
    communities to protect our watersheds, invest in reforestation,
    wildfire resiliency and more. I urge the Committee to support these
    proposals.
    Joint Chiefs Landscape Restoration Partnership Act
        I also urge the Committee's support for the bipartisan, bicameral
    Joint Chiefs Landscape Restoration Partnership Act of 2021 (H.R. 3211)
    to formally authorize the United States Department of Agriculture's
    (USDA) Joint Chiefs' Landscape Restoration Partnership Initiative
    (Joint Chiefs) to better support forest and grassland restoration
    projects across public and private land. The unique nature of this
    initiative is that it supports voluntary restoration projects across
    ownership boundaries, so that treatments can occur across a landscape,
    rather than stopping at public or private land.
        Since USDA launched Joint Chiefs in 2014, the initiative has
    supported 93 projects, including two in Colorado, and treated 300,000
    acres of hazardous fuels, restored 29,000 acres in priority watersheds,
    and enhanced 200,000 acres of wildlife habitat. The Joint Chiefs
    Landscape Restoration Partnership Act of 2021 would formally establish
    the program at USDA, double its funding to help meet demand, and
    improve outreach and accountability.
    Sustainable Agriculture Research Act
        I would also like to highlight the [H.R. 1363,] Sustainable
    Agriculture Research Act, which I have reintroduced this Congress with
    Congressman Rodney Davis. This bipartisan legislation would provide
    Federal support for sustainable agriculture and soil research through
    the Agriculture Advanced Research and Development Authority (AGARDA)
    program.
        The Sustainable Agriculture Research Act [w]ould amend the
    legislation authorizing AGARDA to add goals that explicitly address
    carbon sequestration and reduction of emissions. I encourage the
    Committee to continue their important work in utilizing agriculture as
    a climate solution by considering this legislation.
    Secure Rural Schools Reauthorization Act
        Finally, I urge the Committee to support the bipartisan Secure
    Rural Schools Reauthorization Act of 2021 (H.R. 2099) to provide
    funding to mountain communities and rural areas across the United
    States, through funds for rural schools, emergency response and road
    maintenance.
        The bill provides supplemental Federal funding to counties across
    the United States that are home to large areas of tax-exempt National
    Forests and Federal Lands. The program provides payments derived in
    part through timber receipts and other leasing activities within
    National Forests back to county governments where those forests are
    located to support local schools, and emergency operations. This
    legislation is critical for supporting quality education and ensuring
    that all students and educators in the United States have access to the
    resources they need to succeed.
    Closing
        In closing, thank you Chairman Scott and Ranking Member Thompson
    for the opportunity to testify regarding some of my agriculture
    priorities. I look forward to working with the Committee on these
    issues and many more.
                             Submitted Legislation
      1.  H.R. 1162, 21st Century Conservation Corps Act: https://
                www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-117hr1162ih/pdf/BILLS-
                117hr1162ih.pdf (See p. 92).

      2.  H.R. 1363, Sustainable Agriculture Research Act: https://
                www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-117hr1363ih/pdf/BILLS-
                117hr1363ih.pdf (See p. 165).

      3.  H.R. 2099, Secure Rural Schools Reauthorization Act of 2021:
                https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-117hr2099ih/pdf/
                BILLS-117hr2099ih.pdf (See p. 179).

      4.  H.R. 2241, Civilian Climate Corps Act of 2021: https://
                www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-117hr2241ih/pdf/BILLS-
                117hr2241ih.pdf (See p. 189).

      5.  H.R. 3211, Joint Chiefs Landscape Restoration Partnership Act of
                2021: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-
                117hr3211ih/pdf/BILLS-117hr3211ih.pdf (See p. 387).
                                     ______

       Submitted Letter of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in
                            Congress from New Jersey
    May 28, 2021

        Hon. David Scott,
        Chairman,
        House Agriculture Committee,
        Washington, D.C.;

        Hon. Glenn Thompson,
        Ranking Minority Member,
        House Agriculture Committee,
        Washington, D.C.

        Dear Chairman Scott and Ranking Member Thompson,

        Thank you for providing me the opportunity to submit testimony to
    your Committee. As co-chair of the Coastal Communities Caucus, I would
    like to highlight the need for a stronger and more equitable commitment
    to the seafood industry, which is a key sector of U.S. food production.
        While the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) does share
    jurisdiction with the Department of Commerce in this space, USDA can do
    more to support the nation's seafood industry by complementing the
    programming of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and filling
    gaps where Federal assistance is needed. Though some of USDA's grant
    and purchasing programs are open to some seafood producers and
    fishermen, many medium- and small-sized operations are unaware of that
    fact due to sector participants historically weak relationship with the
    agency. USDA should work in coordination with NMFS to foster a better
    relationship with industry leaders and fishing communities. USDA cannot
    have a truly holistic approach to the U.S. food economy if the seafood
    sector is considered an afterthought for its mission and programming. A
    stronger USDA and seafood sector relationship will provide benefits to
    all Americans, including a stronger and more competitive U.S. food
    economy, jobs, supply chain resiliency, reduction of greenhouse gas
    emissions, and nutrition assistance.
        I would recommend the following to improve the situation:
    Seafood Processing
        There is a shortage of community-driven shoreside infrastructure
    and seafood processing capability in the U.S. Many fishermen are forced
    to send their catch to foreign processing facilities in order to
    prepare the product for sale and consumption in our domestic market. In
    the interest of keeping more seafood production in the U.S. to maintain
    our national competitiveness, create more sector resilience during
    future challenges, and provide more jobs for American workers, USDA
    should ensure more grant funding geared toward processing equipment and
    cold storage be given to seafood producers and fishing communities.
    More domestic processing capabilities will enhance our U.S. supply
    chain, ensure fresh, local and affordable products reach people
    quickly, and curb greenhouse gas emissions.
        Prior to the pandemic, the majority of New Jersey seafood was
    consumed in restaurants. As restaurants remained closed due to public
    health concerns, our fishermen have been struggling to stay afloat due
    to the drastic decline in restaurant consumption. This is the case for
    many other states as well, with an estimated 68 percent of the $102.2
    billion that consumers paid for U.S. fishery products in 2017 being
    spent at food service establishments. Restaurants play an important
    role in the seafood supply chain. They serve not only as an end market,
    but their staffs knowledgeably process seafood into meals. During the
    pandemic, many fishermen have attempted to scale direct-to-consumer
    sales to make up for lost income due to restaurant closures. However,
    most U.S. consumers lack the capability to process and store seafood in
    a way that restaurants or industrial processing facilities are able. A
    significant investment in local processing capabilities by USDA, would
    create greater sector resilience by allowing fishermen to diversify end
    markets for their product and eliminate an overreliance on restaurants
    and foreign processing facilities.
    Seafood Purchasing for Relief and Nutrition Programs
        Additionally, after speaking with fishing communities, I believe
    that expanding seafood purchasing and the list of seafood ordered by
    the USDA, if done correctly to stabilize prices (and not to encourage
    ``race to the bottom'' bidding) could resecure the sector and lead to a
    strong recovery. The fact that the Agricultural Market Service's
    purchasing programs acquire 100 percent domestically produced and
    processed commodity food products, would help create and encourage even
    more resiliency in the sector.
        Furthermore, these proposals would not only help to support and
    grow the U.S. seafood industry, but also allow more fishermen to
    benefit from USDA crisis programs, such as The Emergency Food
    Assistance Program (TEFAP), which has played a central role in USDA's
    COVID-relief efforts for American food producers and people
    experiencing hunger. Though USDA has added more seafood products in its
    purchases since the COVID-19 crisis, fishermen and shellfish farmers
    have been unable to access this important relief program due to the
    lack of processing and packaging capability, as well as pricing
    disparities.
        This also means many Americans that rely on food banks and prepared
    meal organizations are denied healthy seafood as part of their diet.
    USDA should give grants and technical assistance to hunger
    organizations so they can purchase the infrastructure and obtain the
    necessary certifications, if needed, to safely work with seafood
    purchased from local fishermen. Schools, particularly those located
    within fishery communities, are also an excellent potential end market
    for local seafood. According to USDA, children require omega-3 fatty
    acids, which are found in seafood, for brain, eye, and nerve
    development. Income should not be a barrier to receiving the
    nutritional benefits of seafood.
    Marketing
        It is concerning that the U.S. does not have a comprehensive
    domestic seafood marketing campaign, putting our nation at a
    significant disadvantage. Last year alone, Canada and Australia spent
    millions marketing their seafood products through national programs. In
    addition, the U.S. has perhaps the world's strongest environmental,
    labor, and human rights standards for seafood production. Yet, U.S.
    consumers still have significant access to seafood at restaurants and
    markets from trade partners which may participate in harmful illegal,
    unreported, and unregulated fishing practices.
        The USDA can play an important role in supporting domestic
    consumption of U.S. seafood through marketing initiatives. A national
    marketing program would provide significant assistance to the industry
    and help encourage more consumers to purchase seafood for home
    consumption, as opposed to only or primarily eating seafood in
    restaurants. A national marketing program, including television
    commercials or other forms of media, would enable the sector to pivot
    from the difficulties of the COVID-19 pandemic to a future where more
    Americans are consuming healthy seafood products, produced locally and
    processed domestically. Because seafood products are seasonal,
    marketing focused on promoting U.S. seafood in season would create even
    more resiliency for the sector and educate consumers who may have
    become more concerned about supply chains during COVID-19 and want to
    use the purchasing power to support domestic and even local fishermen.
        A national marketing strategy would also help consumers understand
    how to cook or appreciate underutilized seafood, which may be more
    prevalent or inexpensive but not something that the average home cook
    has experience preparing. Direct-to-consumer sales have helped many
    seafood producers weather the pandemic and USDA could build upon those
    efforts through additional marketing resources.
    Outreach to Stakeholders
        Finally, USDA should work to do outreach with seafood stakeholder
    groups to ensure that there is a line of communication open with an
    integral part of the nation's food production. This would also help
    guarantee that assistance provided to food producers is structured in a
    way that is appropriate and beneficial for these industries as well.
    There has been a significant disconnect between the agency and small to
    medium sized seafood producers in both rural and urban areas, with many
    unaware that they can even apply to USDA programs.
        As a Member of a coastal community with constituents involved in
    the seafood industry, I stand by to assist the Committee or agency
    leaders in facilitating conversations with stakeholders and creating
    legislative solutions to improve the Federal Government's commitment to
    this important food sector. Taking these steps will ensure that there
    is more equity in assistance for our seafood producers and allow us to
    continue to build sustainable agriculture infrastructure and a
    resilient U.S. food economy.
        Thank you for your consideration of my requests.
                Sincerely,

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Frank Pallone, Jr.,
    Member of Congress.
                                     ______

     Submitted Statement of Hon. Scott Perry, a Representative in Congress
                               from Pennsylvania
        Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Thompson, Members of the Committee:
    I encourage the House Agriculture Committee to join me in protecting
    American consumers, workers and manufacturers from further government-
    imposed harm. The SWEETER Act--previously known as the SWEET Act in
    previous Congressional iterations--would eliminate the hidden tax on
    consumers that props up the sugar industry through various market
    distortions intended to artificially inflate the domestic price of
    sugar. Whatever the intent of the program, it has come to represent the
    worst type of corporate-cronyism; using the power of the Federal
    Government to bestow massive financial benefits on a concentrated group
    of politically-connected sugar producers while exacting significant
    costs on consumers, the domestic food manufacturing industry, and the
    economy as a whole. It is past time to end corporate giveaways and
    bring our policies in line with the free market.
        Rooted in a Depression-era emergency relief program, the current
    sugar program is comprised of four pillars--price support loans,
    domestic marketing allotments, tariff rate quotas, and the Feedstock
    Flexibility Program that work in concert to limit the domestic supply
    of sugar to artificially inflate the domestic price. The program has
    been wildly successful at achieving this goal--inflating the domestic
    price of sugar to twice the global rate on average. However, the
    program imposes significant costs to the American consumer; to the tune
    of $2.4-$4 billion annually. Previous CBO estimates have assessed that
    the sugar program will impose an approximately $120 million cost over
    the next 10 years--a cost that will be borne by the American Taxpayer.
        In Ranking Member Glenn Thompson's home state of Pennsylvania,
    40,000 Pennsylvanians work in sugar-intensive industries; we cannot sit
    idly by and allow the program to continue its economic devastation and
    threaten these family-sustaining jobs. Proponents of the sugar program
    insist it's necessary to protect American jobs, but a 2006 Department
    of Commerce study found that for every sugar industry job saved by the
    sugar program; three jobs in the food manufacturing industry are lost.
    In fact, sugar-intensive manufacturers lose between 17,000 and 20,000
    jobs per year as a result of the sugar program. The truth is the sugar
    program puts sugar-intensive manufacturers in the impossible position
    of choosing between offshoring jobs and going out of business; either
    way, the American worker loses.
        I plan to introduce the SWEETER Act on Wednesday June 16th * and
    would appreciate the opportunity to work with my colleagues on the
    House Agriculture Committee to ensure robust support for this policy.
    Clearly, the costs of the sugar program far outweigh the benefits to a
    small group of special interests. It is time to reject corporate-
    cronyism and instead, support American workers, consumers, and
    manufacturers.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        * Editor's note: the legislation referred to was not introduced on
    June 16, 2021. H.R. 5680, Saving Workers by Eliminating Economic
    Tampering and Ensuring Reliability Act (SWEETER Act) was introduced on
    October 22, 2021.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        I am grateful for the Committee's consideration of my request and
    look forward to working with each of you to ensure that the American
    People no longer bear the burden of the anachronistic sugar program.
                             Submitted Legislation
      1.  H.R. 5680, Saving Workers by Eliminating Economic Tampering and
                Ensuring Reliability Act (SWEETER Act): https://
                www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-117hr5680ih/pdf/BILLS-
                117hr5680ih.pdf (See p. 407).
                                     ______

     Submitted Letter of Hon. August Pfluger, a Representative in Congress
                                   from Texas
    May 27, 2021

    Hon. David Scott,                    Hon. Glenn Thompson,
    Chairman,                            Ranking Minority Member,
    House Committee on Agriculture,      House Committee on Agriculture,
    Washington, D.C.;                    Washington, D.C.

        Chairman Scott and Ranking Member Thompson,

        Thank you for providing the opportunity to highlight the needs and
    priorities of farmers and ranchers in Texas' 11th District. I am proud
    to represent a rural district in west Texas that has over 15 million
    acres of farm and ranch land worked by diligent producers who not only
    feed and clothe the State of Texas, but the entire nation.
        As you well know, farm and ranch production systems are not only
    critical for our local, state, and national economies, but also play a
    key role in strengthening our national security, A nation that can feed
    itself is inherently safer and more secure than one that cannot. The
    United States--thanks to smart policies like the 2018 Farm Bill--
    retains the safest, most abundant, and affordable food supply in the
    world. Producers in west Texas play a large part in this
    accomplishment, and Congress should continue to prioritize our rural
    communities and Texas farmers and ranchers,
        The following priorities reflect feedback I hear frequently from
    the communities I represent:
        Invest in Rural Broadband: Too many of my constituents live on the
    wrong side of the digital divide, and rural America needs additional
    investment for access to high-speed internet for work, healthcare, and
    educational opportunities. Increasing the availability for reliable
    broadband remains essential for economic prosperity in our communities.
    I am thankful for Ranking Member Thompson's leadership in introducing
    the [H.R. 3369] Broadband for Rural America Act, and I am proud to be a
    cosponsor of this important piece of legislation.
        Protect the Safety Net: With the ever-increasing challenges for
    farm and ranch operators, a strong and durable safety net is necessary
    so producers can continue to provide the food and fiber we depend on.
    Additionally, I remain hopeful Congress can act to reauthorize the U.S.
    Department of Agriculture's Wildfire Hurricane Indemnity Program Plus
    (WHIP+) to cover disasters from 2020 and 2021.
        Predator Control: Last year, the United States Department of
    Agriculture (USDA) estimated that farmers and ranchers sustained
    roughly $232 million in livestock death loss due to predation. As
    producers continue to grapple with effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and
    regulatory uncertainty, we must develop more efficient methods to
    control invasive species and mitigate predation losses to livestock.
        Promote Trade Opportunities for U.S. Agriculture: A pro-growth,
    America-first trade agenda that allows for more made-in-Texas goods to
    be shipped globally is critical for producers' economic outlook. It is
    imperative that Congress supports new trade agreements with strong
    agriculture provisions, as well as pursues vigorous enforcement of the
    China Phase One Agreement and the recently ratified United States-
    Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA).
        Fight Policies that Harm Rural America: I remain deeply concerned
    about President Biden's plan to pursue trillions in crippling tax hikes
    that will sabotage America's economic recovery. To that end, it is
    vital Congress preserve stepped-up basis so family owned agricultural
    operations can be passed along to the next generation and continue to
    grow our economy. Additionally, burdensome regulatory policies stemming
    from the outdated Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Obama-era
    Water[s] of the United S[t]ates (WOTUS) can be disastrous for
    agricultural production throughout the country. Cutting bureaucratic
    red tape and rolling back unnecessary regulations remains paramount.
        Thank you, again, for this opportunity. I stand ready to assist you
    both as we work to find solutions that benefit Texas and the entire
    nation.
                Sincerely,

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    August Pfluger,
    Member of Congress.
                             Submitted Legislation
      1.  H.R. 3369, Broadband for Rural America Act: https://
                www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-117hr3369ih/pdf/BILLS-
                117hr3369ih.pdf (See p. 394).
                                     ______

    Submitted Statement of Hon. Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, a Delegate
                   in Congress from Northern Mariana Islands
        Members of the Committee are tired of hearing this, I know, but the
    people I represent must be included in the Supplemental Nutrition
    Assistance Program, SNAP.
        The Marianas is not currently part of SNAP, but instead receives a
    block grant, which has been shown over and over to be an inadequate
    response to combating food insecurity.
        Just last October, families I am responsible for were cut from the
    block grant program because there was not enough fiscal 2021 money
    available to feed everyone in need. Families that were not cut
    completely from the program had their benefits cut 25 percent.
        I hope we can all agree it is unacceptable to be cutting food aid
    in the middle of the economic crisis caused by the pandemic.
        I was able to get supplemental funding for fiscal 2021 in
    December's appropriation and additional funding in the American Rescue
    Plan.
        And I urged local authorities to trust I would be able to get that
    extra money and not to cut benefits.
        But I was ignored, and families went hungry.
        This story is not new. Throughout my tenure in Congress, I have had
    repeatedly to ask for funding to supplement the block grant--a series
    of stop-gap solutions.
        But this hit-and-miss approach to funding is no way for the Federal
    Government to run a program that people's very lives depend on.
        And there is a simple solution. Treat the people I represent in the
    Mariana Islands the same way their fellow U.S. citizens are treated in
    all fifty states, the District of Columbia, Guam, and the Virgin
    Islands: Include my people in SNAP.
        SNAP is set up to respond to changing economic conditions, natural
    disasters, pandemics, and changes in food prices.
        SNAP provides a basic level of food assistance to those in need.
    And by doing so SNAP benefits all of us.
        Because when children have adequate access to food, they do better
    in school and eventually become productive members of society.
        When adults are adequately fed, they can work and pull their
    families out of poverty and out of reliance on Federal programs like
    SNAP.
        I have introduced legislation to add the Marianas to SNAP: H.R.
    421, the AYUDA Act, which currently has 29 cosponsors.
        I have had encouraging discussions with Secretary Vilsack and
    Deputy [Under S]ecretary Dean about their existing statutory authority
    to extend SNAP to the Marianas with any transitional adjustments they
    deem necessary.
        And I have raised this issue time and again with this Committee and
    with our staff.
        I am not going to give up--or go away.
        I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the AYUDA Act, and I look forward
    to more discussions with USDA and FNS to make SNAP in the Marianas a
    reality.
        Thank you.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
    Member of Congress.
                             Submitted Legislation

      1.  H.R. 421, Assuring You Uniform Dietary Assistance (AYUDA) Act of
                2021 (AYUDA Act): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/
                BILLS-117hr421ih/pdf/BILLS-117hr421ih.pdf (See p. 89).
                                     ______

     Submitted Statement of Hon. Michael F. Q. San Nicolas, a Delegate in
                               Congress from Guam
        Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Thompson, and Members of the House
    Committee on Agriculture--

        Hafa Adai and thank you for the opportunity to highlight Guam's
    needs to secure food safety and affordability, enhance food security,
    and to ensure the competitiveness of American agriculture.
        Food security has and always will be one of the most important
    aspects of our nation's prosperity. From the first Thanksgiving to the
    present realities highlighted by today's global health crisis, we have
    recognized the importance of food for the strength and upward mobility
    of our communities. While we are aware that food insecurity affects
    neighborhoods across the country, the problem is more so exacerbated in
    the territories due to the considerable distance between our islands
    and access to adequate food sources.
        To satisfy the holistic food needs of our region, the people of
    Guam and its neighboring territories must resort to a fixed reliance on
    importation and sourcing from neighboring Asian nations. In fact,
    approximately 90% of Guam's consumed foods are imported and within the
    last 10 years, total imports comprised 68.1% and 57.7% of all surface
    and air cargo respectively.\1\ This demonstrated dependence on
    communities beyond our shores to feed our people leaves the health and
    well-being of Americans living in Guam vulnerable to circumstances
    beyond our control. For example, limited shipping lanes may dissolve at
    a moment's notice, and this pandemic has emphasized that fragility.
    Additionally, Guam's dependency on food availability dictated by import
    conditions such as policy, weather, and trade adversely impact the
    access to nutritious food options and contributes further to the
    current public health crisis.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Christie Nicoson, ``Positive Peace and Food Security in Guam.''
    Rotary Peace Center, November 2016. http://worldwithoutgenocide.org/wp-
    content/uploads/2016/09/Food-Security-in-Guam-2016.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In an effort to resolve these resource gaps, establish food
    security for the island, and actively work toward Guam's goal of
    building regional sustainability, I humbly request the Committee
    prioritize fully funding programs that support the construction of a
    slaughterhouse and fumigator facility in rural areas and the
    territories. The lack of a fumigator facility to verify the safety and
    pest-free quality of produce hinders the importation of goods from our
    U.S.-allied neighbors and prevents the establishment of a circular
    economy partnership. Without a slaughterhouse to facilitate meeting the
    standard of livestock-related consumption presented by our island and
    region, both agricultural practitioners and consumers from Guam are
    denied the opportunity of participating in a system of local sourcing
    widely available to Americans across the continental United States. I
    have also requested funding for the revitalization of Guam's
    fishermen's co-op to the House Appropriations Committee. Without a
    revitalized fishermen's co-op facility, Guam is unable to
    comprehensively access and capitalize on the numerous ocean resources
    readily available to our island and throughout the Pacific.
        As a body whose living mission has been directed towards keeping
    our country safe, secure, and moving forward through practical
    agricultural tools, we understand that our existing requests present
    key areas of interest for this Committee. Although they may be in other
    committees of jurisdiction, we humbly request for the support of all
    Members of this Committee in order to see things through in the
    interests of our country and the Territory of Guam.
        Your work importantly highlights the fundamental relationship which
    exists between food and the quality of life for all Americans, and it
    is my hope that your advocacy assists in providing us the opportunity
    to meaningfully improve the lives and circumstances of the people of
    Guam through these projects. By supporting our efforts to secure
    funding for the construction of a fumigator facility, slaughterhouse,
    and revitalized fishermen's co-op facility, you will partake in the
    work of establishing systems and structures that will respond to the
    unique needs of our community and effectively uplift them as a whole.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to present our needs before
    this Committee, and we look forward to working with you to enhancing
    the quality of life for our Americans living in the territory of Guam.
                                  [attachment]
    Positive Peace and Food Security in Guam
    Christie Nicoson, Rotary Peace Fellow, Uppsala University Rotary Peace
    Center

    November 2016
    Abstract
        Worldwide, about one in nine people are undernourished. They are
    food-insecure, or unable to have sustained access to enough nutritious
    food. Food insecurity can contribute to instability or violence.
    Meanwhile, food security can boost a community's resilience and
    contribute to positive peace, or the greater well-being of society
    beyond an absence of violence.
        The Pacific region faces particular obstacles to achieving food
    security, including a growing population, effects of climate change,
    and governance struggles. This case study explores food security in
    Guam and aims to contribute to a more holistic understanding of food
    security there. Interviews conducted with people involved in different
    types of local food initiatives--farmers, teachers, vendors, and
    activists--seek to highlight motivations for, challenges, and impact of
    local food on the food security situation. Concluding recommendations
    explore how strengthening local food initiatives can contribute to
    positive peace on the island, enhancing the well-being of society as a
    whole.
    Table of Contents
    Executive summary and key recommendations
    Acknowledgements
    1. Introduction
    2. Context

        2.1  History of Guam and globalization
        2.2  Food security, conflict, and peace

              2.2.1  Food and conflict
              2.2.2  Food and peace

        2.3  Food security in the Pacific
        2.4  Food security in Guam

              2.4.1  Availability and access
              2.4.2  Utilization
              2.4.3  Stability

    3. Case study: local food initiatives in Guam

        3.1  Methodology

              3.1.1  Definitions
              3.1.2  Research design and parameters

          3.2  Research findings

              3.2.1  Trends across and between groups
              3.2.2  Potential for positive peace
              3.2.3  Further areas for exploration

        4. Limitations
        5. Recommendations
        6. Conclusion

    References
    Executive summary and key recommendations
        According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
    Nations, about 795 million people worldwide are undernourished.\1\
    There are significant challenges for achieving food security, which
    exists ``when all people, at all times, have physical, social, and
    economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their
    dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life.''
    \2\ Availability, access, utilization, and stability make up the four
    key pillars of food security. Food insecurity may contribute to the
    likelihood of instability or violence,\3\ while food security can
    contribute to a community's resilience and to well-being at the
    national, community, household, and individual levels.\4\ The ability
    of people to have sufficient food contributes to positive peace, or the
    greater well-being of society beyond an absence of violence.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,
    International Fund for Agricultural Development, and World Food
    Programme, ``The State of Food Insecurity in the World. Meeting the
    2015 International Hunger Targets: Taking Stock of Uneven Progress''
    (Rome, 2015), http://www.fao.org/hunger/en/:8.
        \2\ Anders Jagerskog and Ashok Swain, Emerging Security Threats in
    the Middle East: The Impact of Climate Change and Globalization
    (London: Rowman & Littlefield, 2016): 39.
        \3\ Emmy Simmons, ``Harvesting Peace: Food Security, Conflict, and
    Cooperation,'' Environmental Change and Security Program Report
    (Washington, D.C.: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars,
    2013): 19-22.
        \4\ Clemens Breisinger, et al., ``Building Resilience for Food and
    Nutrition Security,'' in International Food Policy Research Institute,
    2014: 3.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The many islands and nations that make up the Pacific region face
    particular obstacles to achieving food security. Population, climate
    change, and strong governance have been identified as primary concerns.
    On the Pacific island of Guam, other challenges include high food
    prices, disproportionate amounts of imported food, and vulnerability to
    impacts of climate change and weather patterns. Food availability in
    Guam is largely contingent on conditions favorable to imports,
    including in policy, weather, and trade. Furthermore, lack of
    accessible nutritious food options and widespread preference for diets
    high in processed foods contribute to a public health crisis.
        This study aims to gather anecdotal evidence about food security in
    Guam. It draws on existing data in order to understand a holistic view
    of the island's food security situation and compiles interviews with
    individuals involved in a number of local food initiatives, including
    organizations, farmers, educators, and vendors who are working to
    support local farmers and strengthen the presence of local food in
    people's shopping habits and diets. Specifically, this study examines
    food security in relation to Guam's prospects for positive peace. The
    case study is designed to highlight the goals, impacts, and challenges
    for local food initiatives in Guam so as to better understand food
    security in the context of positive peace.
        Key findings from this case study show that local food initiatives
    are mostly focused on health, market conditions, and weather events.
    Goals and impacts as stated in interviews often reflect focus on
    improving health as well as contributing to import substitution or
    strengthening the local economy. Challenges include high costs for
    farmers, which make sales of local food less competitive with imported
    goods, and struggles with production due to high incidence of pests and
    weather events.
        Recommendations of this study include the following actions to
    improve food security prospects in Guam:

      1.  Enhanced understanding of the situation--Effective action around
                food security requires accurate and updated information.
                Studies, data collection, and analysis should not only be
                continued, but should increasingly feature collaboration
                between various community stakeholders. This would
                contribute to the availability of practical knowledge to
                better meet the needs of the community.

      2.  Expanded education on nutrition--Increased public awareness and
                understanding around basic nutrition and the links between
                diet and health are crucial to improving food security.
                Integrating knowledge and action around health and local
                food through nutrition would benefit people's well-being
                and support local agriculture.

      3.  Encouraging young farmers--Education in schools and training
                programs to introduce young people to the farming industry
                and allow related practical experience are important steps
                toward increasing the number of local farmers and shifting
                the farmer demographic to include a younger population.
                This will also facilitate building continuity of skills and
                productivity and pass on local knowledge, both of which are
                increasingly important as the current farming population
                ages.

      4.  Market expansion--Opportunities for farmers to expand to
                supplying other sectors beyond grocery stores and farmers'
                markets should be considered and could include contracts or
                arrangements with the tourism and military industries. The
                demands generated from these industries could support
                farmers, boosting the local food environment and economy.

      5.  Improved communication and coordination--Stronger channels of
                communication that facilitate sharing of knowledge, data,
                and resources between academics, policy makers, nonprofits,
                business, farmers, and other interested groups in Guam
                would enhance opportunities available to individual groups
                and the collective of local food initiatives.

      6.  Targeted food accessibility programs--Information should be
                gathered to assess which individuals and groups are in more
                vulnerable situations regarding food security. This
                information could inform programming to ensure that
                assistance programs do not reinforce harmful power
                structures and that healthy food is equitably accessible.
    Acknowledgements
        I owe many thanks the individuals in Guam who welcomed me and made
    this project possible. I am indebted to those who so willingly shared
    their knowledge and experiences.
        I owe special gratitude to those groups and individuals who
    supported this study and are doing tremendous work in support of local
    food in Guam. I would like to thank Anthony Ada, Jesse Bamba, Robert
    Barber, Peter Barcinas, Cassie Brady, Colleen Cabedo, Sylvia Frain,
    Thalia Gange, Rebekah Garrison, Stephanie Herring, Michael Limtiaco,
    Steve Martinez, Denise Mendiola-Hertslet, Melanie Mendiola, Tiara
    Na'puti, Jessica Nangauta, Sabina Perez, Gena Rojas, Jesse Rosario,
    Marilyn Salas, Bernard Watson, Earnie Wustig, Rotary Club of Tumon Bay,
    Rotary Club of Northern Guam, Sunrise Rotary Club, Rotary E-Club of
    Pago Bay, and the others who generously shared their time and
    experience with me.
        I am grateful to Rotary International and the faculty at Uppsala
    University for supporting my studies and encouraging me in this
    research. Special thanks go to Minneapolis University Rotary Club,
    Rotary Districts 2350 and 5950, and Uppsala University Rotary Peace
    Center.
        The views in this report are my own and do not represent those of
    the aforementioned groups or individuals. Any mistakes or errors are my
    own.
    1. Introduction
        More than just providing sustenance, food brings people together,
    ties them to a time and place, forms culture, and shapes tradition. In
    modern history, humans have advanced agricultural practices, improved
    technology, and shaped an increasingly connected global market. Yet
    despite this progress, millions of people are unable to fulfill their
    basic food needs. Although food is recognized internationally as among
    the most basic rights guaranteed to all people, nearly 795 million
    people, one in nine people worldwide, do not have enough food.\5\
    Addressing this need is a matter of addressing adequate production and
    distribution and ensuring food security.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,
    International Fund for Agricultural Development, and World Food
    Programme, ``The State of Food Insecurity in the World. Meeting the
    2015 International Hunger Targets: Taking Stock of Uneven Progress'':
    8.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Food security is defined by the Food and Agriculture Organization
    of the United Nations as existing ``when all people, at all times, have
    physical, social, and economic access to sufficient, safe and
    nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an
    active and healthy life.'' \6\ Food security is generally considered to
    have four key components: availability, access, utilization, and
    stability. These comprise a picture of food that not only includes food
    sources, but also equitable distribution of food, people's knowledge of
    good nutrition, and the ability to sustain these traits over time.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ Jagerskog and Swain, Emerging Security Threats in the Middle
    East: The Impact of Climate Change and Globalization: 39.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        This research aims to highlight how food security is connected to
    peace. The following case study report is an analysis of the food
    security situation in Guam. An unincorporated territory of the United
    States, Guam hosts multiple U.S. military bases and the island itself
    has not been actively involved in war since World War II, during which
    time the Japanese invaded the island and the U.S. fought to regain
    control. Guam is currently experiencing negative peace, that is, an
    absence of conflict. However, simply viewing peace as a lack of
    violence misses key components that make up the greater well-being of a
    society. There is more to peace than not fighting. Moving to look
    beyond the absence of violence allows a more dynamic picture of the
    true state of well-being. ``Positive peace,'' therefore, is a more
    useful term as it aims to understand the degree to which people are
    able to meet their needs and foster sustained peace. Positive peace is
    defined as ``peace that exceeds the absence of violence, as
    characterized by the presence of justice, fairness, well-being in
    individual and group interactions.'' \7\ By examining different aspects
    of positive peace, it is possible to understand how food security may
    be an important component of this sustained well-being of society.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ Johan Galtung and International Peace Research Institute, Oslo,
    Peace by Peaceful Means: Peace and Conflict, Development and
    Civilization, vol. 14, Peace and Conflict, Development and Civilization
    (London: GB: SAGE Publications Ltd, 1996).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        This report will begin in Section 2 with a discussion of how food
    security is related to peace and situate these topics regionally in the
    Pacific and locally in Guam. Section 3 will explain the research
    methodology used, highlight the results of a multiple-case study
    conducted in Guam, and provide a perspective of positive peace on the
    island. After discussing limitations, the report concludes with
    recommendations and opportunities for future work.
    2. Context
    2.1  History of Guam and globalization
        Guam, or Guahan in Chamorro, is a unique and interesting case for
    food security, particularly in light of the dramatic changes of
    globalization and the increased role of the military against a backdrop
    of colonialism. The legacies of colonization and militarization
    continue to profoundly affect the current situation in Guam.
        Guam, located in the north Pacific, is the largest and southernmost
    island of the Mariana Islands in Micronesia. Scholars estimate that
    migration to the Pacific Islands took place between 2,000 B.C. and 500
    A.D. Chamorros, Guam's indigenous peoples, are thought to have first
    settled the island during this time.\8\ Following Portuguese explorer
    Ferdinand Magellan's landing in Guam in 1521, the Spanish claimed Guam
    in 1565 and colonized the island, spreading Christianity through
    Catholic missionaries and using the island to benefit Spanish
    commerce.\9\ The Spanish occupied Guam for over 300 years, despite
    occasional conflicts and rebellion with Chamorros.\10\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ Paul Carano and Pedro C. Sanchez, A Complete History of Guam,
    9th ed. (Rutland and Tokyo: Charles E. Tuttle Company, 1982): 16-17.
        \9\ Ibid, 39, 44; 62.
        \10\ Ibid: 61-87.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The U.S. captured Guam during the Spanish-American War, and the
    Spanish granted them the island through the Treaty of Paris in
    1898.\11\ During World War II, the Japanese occupied Guam for 31
    months. During this time, the Japanese separated indigenous Chamorro
    families and subjected the people to newly imposed cultural and
    education systems, forced labor, incarceration, torture, concentration
    camps, and execution.\12\ This occupation is thought to have resulted
    in the killing of as much as ten percent of Guam's population.\13\ The
    U.S. recaptured the island in 1944.\14\ In 1950, the Guam Organic Act
    established Guam as an unincorporated organized territory of the U.S.,
    making it one of the world's current seventeen non-self-governing
    territories classified by the United Nations and subject to the
    decolonization process.\15\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \11\ Robert F. Rogers, Destiny's Landfall: A History of Guam
    (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1995).
        \12\ Carano and Sanchez, A Complete History of Guam: 267-290.
        \13\ Werner Gruhl, Imperial Japan's World War Two, 1931-1945
    (Transaction Publishers, 2007).
        \14\ Carano and Sanchez, A Complete History of Guam: 293-309.
        \15\ United Nations General Assembly, ``Information from Non-Self
    Governing Territories Transmitted under Article 73e of the Charter of
    the United Nations, Report of the Secretary-General'' (United Nations,
    2015), http://www.un.org/en/events/nonselfgoverning/
    nonselfgoverning.shtml.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Post-War period that followed brought many changes to the
    island: per capita incomes increased and modern shopping centers,
    churches, and infrastructure were constructed. Guam also made strides
    toward greater self-governance.\16\ A growing population has also
    impacted current affairs in Guam. Population growth rates continue to
    increase annually. The population growth rate between 1990 and 2000 was
    1.4 percent.\17\ The 2010 Census counted a population of 159,358
    people, a 2.9 percent growth rate from 2000.\18\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \16\ Carano and Sanchez, A Complete History of Guam: 396-398.
        \17\ Bureau of Statistics and Plans, ``Guam's Facts and Figures at
    a Glance 2013'' (Hagatna: Office of the Governor of Guam, 2014).
        \18\ United States Census Bureau, ``Guam Demographic Profile
    Summary File: 2010 Census of Population and Housing,'' March 2014.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        These changes have had other profound effects in Guam's
    development. Tourism has grown to become a major economic sector.
    According to Guam Visitors Bureau (GVB), tourism in Guam generates $1.4
    billion annually. The sector accounts for 60 percent of Guam's business
    revenue each year and employs 31 percent of the island's non-Federal
    workers. The majority of visitors come from East Asia: 71 percent from
    Japan, with growing numbers from Korea and Taiwan. In 2012, there were
    over 1.3 million arrivals and projections for 2020 forecast two million
    visitors.\19\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \19\ Guam Visitors Bureau, ``Vision 2020'' (Tumon: Guam Visitors
    Bureau, 2014).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Another major economic sector is the U.S. military, which has come
    to dominate the island both in physical and economic presence. The
    island economy is heavily dependent on the U.S. military \20\ and 28
    percent, or roughly \1/3\, of the landmass is occupied by the military,
    as shown in Figure 1.\21\ The military is a major employer, and
    recruitment programs start in high school. Guam's enlistment rate is
    among the highest in the U.S. In 2007, it reportedly ranked first among
    54 states and territories in recruiting success in the Army National
    Guard.\22\ Though there are many factors contributing to this, the
    heavy involvement with the military can be partly attributed to the
    experience of World War II that persists in living memory, as well as
    to economic necessity. In 2010, 25 percent of the population was
    considered poor.\23\ Joining the military provides not only income, but
    also access to the military's base infrastructure, including hospitals,
    schools, and grocery stores with more affordable rates than most public
    facilities. According to a recent news article, Guam currently hosts
    six thousand military personnel and an expansion plan set for 2022
    would bring an additional 5,000 marines and 1,300 dependents.\24\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \20\ Natividad and Gwyn Kirk, ``Fortress Guam: Resistance to the US
    Military Mega-Buildup,'' The Asia-Pacific Journal, Japan Focus, 8, no.
    19 (May 2010): 4.
        \21\ John Letman, ``Proposed US Military Buildup on Guam Angers
    Locals Who Liken It to Colonization,'' The Guardian, August 1, 2016.
        \22\ Natividad and Kirk, ``Fortress Guam: Resistance to the US
    Military Mega-Buildup'': 5.
        \23\ Ibid.
        \24\ Letman, ``Proposed US Military Buildup on Guam Angers Locals
    Who Liken It to Colonization.''
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Figure 1: Military Presence in Guam

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              (Map: The Guardian, 2016).

        Though the people in Guam are U.S. citizens, they are denied a vote
    in presidential elections and lack full political representation in
    U.S. Congress. Guam is allowed to elect a ``delegate,'' or a nonvoting
    Member, to the U.S. House of Representatives.\25\ The political status
    also affects the economy. For instance, the Merchant Marine Act of 1920
    (P.L. 66-261), more commonly known as the Jones Act, regulates commerce
    by requiring that all goods or passengers transferred on ships between
    U.S. ports--like Guam--must be carried on U.S.-flag ships that are
    constructed in the U.S., owned by U.S. citizens, and crewed by U.S.
    citizens and U.S. permanent residents.\26\ The Jones Act is said to be
    important to supporting economic interests of the U.S. shipping
    industry \27\ and protecting national security.\28\ However, the Act
    severely limits the goods that can be brought into the country. The
    constricted nature of the market imposes prices on the people of Guam
    that far exceed that of not only those on the continent but also
    neighboring islands, as explained later in this report.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \25\ United States House of Representatives, 48 U.S.C. Ch. 16:
    Delegates to Congress, Title 48--Territories and Insular Possessions,
    Title VII,  712, 122 Stat. 868, vol. 48 U.S.C. 1752, 2008.
        \26\ United States Senate, Merchant Marine Act, 41 Stat. 988, 1920.
        \27\ Chris Jennewein, ``Hunter Named `Champion of Maritime' For
    Support of Shipbuilding,'' Times of SanDiego, September 30, 2015,
    http://timesofsandiego.com/politics/2015/09/30/hunter-named-champion-
    of-maritime-for-support-of-shipbuilding/.
        \28\ Daniel Goure, ``The Jones Act and Homeland Security in the
    21st Century'' (The Lexington Institute, July 2016), http://
    lexingtoninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Jones-Act-and-
    Homeland-Security.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2.2  Food security, conflict, and peace
    2.2.1  Food and conflict
        Researchers with the International Food Policy Research Institute
    state ``most wars of the late 20th century and early 21st century are
    `food wars,' meaning food is used as a weapon, food systems are
    destroyed in the course of conflict, and food insecurity persists as a
    legacy of conflict.'' \29\ The connection between food and conflict is
    not surprising. Food is a basic necessity and scarcity or threats to
    access have serious repercussions on peoples' lives. The connection
    works both ways: food insecurity can be both a cause and consequence of
    conflict.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \29\ Ellen Messer and Marc J. Cohen, ``Conflict, Food Insecurity,
    and Globalization,'' International Food Policy Research Institute, May
    2006: 1-45.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Conflict may cause food insecurity in a number of ways, affecting
    all four aspects of food security: availability, access, utilization,
    and stability. Fundamentality, conflict affects availability of food
    through:

      1.  Disruption of food production;

      2.  Interruption of food delivery in both markets and humanitarian
                assistance;

      3.  Harm to investment in food systems by diverting funds; or

      4.  Destruction of food and related assets, such as equipment,
                livestock, seeds, and food stocks, harming both immediate
                and future food-production capabilities.\30\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \30\ Simmons, ``Harvesting Peace: Food Security, Conflict, and
    Cooperation.''

        As this list demonstrates, violence or unrest can disrupt
    production and market flows or destroy infrastructure that is crucial
    to the food system. People may be prompted to take preventative action
    in the face of such difficulties, withholding funds or resources they
    might otherwise invest in food and agriculture. These diminishing
    investments or withdrawal from the sector can reduce household income
    as well as food availability and accessibility.\31\ In addition to
    affecting availability, conflict also disrupts and impacts access,
    utility, and stability of food systems, thus contributing to greater
    food insecurity.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \31\ Barrett, ``Food or Consequences: Food Security and Its
    Implications for Global Sociopolitical Stability'': 9-11.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Food security can also play a role in triggering conflict. Food can
    contribute to conflict through causing or perpetuating:

      1.  Extreme and sudden rises in food prices, as seen in food
                protests, riots, and other forms of unrest;

      2.  Competition for scarce resources, such as water, necessary for
                food production;

      3.  Inequalities, particularly in resource-rich countries;

      4.  Incentives for people to join rebel groups in order to secure
                food or other resources for themselves or their families;
                or

      5.  Instability that sustains conflicts.\32\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \32\ Simmons, ``Harvesting Peace: Food Security, Conflict, and
    Cooperation:'' 19-22.

        Potential for conflict is higher when inequalities or environmental
    degradation, or a combination of the two, cause ``extreme
    marginalization of large segments of the population.'' \33\ Some
    research suggests that such a relationship between food insecurity and
    conflict is conditioned by socioeconomic positioning. Unrest as a
    response to spikes in food prices most often occurs among more affluent
    groups, less so among rural, poor, or marginalized populations.
    Notably, food-insecure communities do not always resort to violence.
    Such instances of conflict are more common when groups are not overly
    repressed and are organized sufficiently, such as through strong
    political leadership.\34\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \33\ Messer and Cohen, ``Conflict, Food Insecurity, and
    Globalization'': 15.
        \34\ Messer and Cohen, ``Conflict, Food Insecurity, and
    Globalization.''
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Although food is not found to be a direct cause of conflict, it is
    certainly an aggravating factor. Other factors, such as high
    unemployment, rapid urbanization, or government instability also
    contribute to vulnerability and could impact both food insecurity and
    conflict. Although a causal link is not possible to prove at this point
    between food and conflict, it is important to note that the
    relationship between the two can be observed both in research and as
    experienced by people in their daily lives.
    2.2.2  Food and peace
        Previous findings show that food, as essential to human life, is a
    potential contributor to conflict. Likewise, it can be a powerful means
    to promote peace. When food is approached with a civic perspective, it
    stands to be a force for fostering resiliency and sustainable positive
    peace.
        Resilience is defined as a country or household's ability to
    ``prevent, anticipate, prepare for, cope with, and recover from
    conflicts,'' such that they are better able to grow after a conflict,
    not simply survive one.\35\ This enables a community to support itself
    in a way that will foster greater well-being and positive peace, such
    as through support for and promotion of adequate education, health
    care, and governing institutions. Figure 2 illustrates
    interdependencies of food security, conflict, and resiliency. This
    framework takes national food security as the ``availability'' pillar--
    dependent on a country's ability to provide adequate food for all
    people. National-level food security depends on a country's
    macroeconomic stability, sector policies, and governance. This entails
    not only an economic equality dimension, but also the ability of
    citizens to actively participate in the governing process, and for
    people to equitably access necessary services.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \35\ Breisinger, et al., ``Building Resilience for Food and
    Nutrition Security'': 3.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Figure 2: The conflict resiliency-food security framework

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              (Image: Breisinger, 2014).

        Household food security, meanwhile, here supports the ``access''
    and ``utilization'' components of the term, in line with the FAO
    definition of food security that ``all people, at all times, have
    physical, social, and economic access to sufficient, safe and
    nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an
    active and healthy life.'' \36\ Resiliency at this level can be built
    with this component that security at the national level, or
    availability, does not necessarily equate to food-secure households or
    individuals. That is, simply because food is available, does not
    necessarily mean that all people will have equitable access to it or be
    able to use food in the best or most appropriate way. Therefore,
    household and individual resiliency is just as crucial as resiliency at
    the national level.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \36\ Jagerskog and Swain, Emerging Security Threats in the Middle
    East: The Impact of Climate Change and Globalization: 39.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2.3  Food security in the Pacific
        Traditionally, Guam and other Pacific islands were self-sufficient.
    They achieved food security through sustainable agriculture, fishing,
    and harvesting local produce. Increasingly, imports have provided for
    the majority of food needs, though often with lower quality substitutes
    for locally grown and produced foods.\37\ This, along with many other
    inter-related factors, affects the state of food security. Figure 3
    presents a model for the various components and influencing factors of
    food security. These sectors, groups, and circumstances represent the
    main impacts on food supply and demand, affecting overall food
    security.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \37\ Food Secure Pacific Working Group, ``Towards a Food Secure
    Pacific. Framework for Action on Food Security in the Pacific: 2011-
    2015'' (Port Vila, 2010): 7.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Figure 3: Conceptual model of food security in the Pacific

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              (Image: Food Secure Pacific Working Group, 2010).

        Food security has increasingly been recognized as a challenge for
    the Pacific region. Leaders at the 39th Pacific Islands Forum in 2008
    acknowledged ``the high importance of food security as an emerging
    issue which poses challenges for the future well-being of people across
    the region'' and urged high political commitment, calling on
    governments to take ``immediate action to address food security issues
    nationally and, where possible, regionally through a range of measures
    across key sectors such as agriculture, fisheries, trade and
    transport.'' \38\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \38\ Ibid.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Expanding on this model, the 2010 Pacific Food Summit, highlighted
    three factors as specific challenges for food security in the Pacific
    region: population, climate change, and governance. The Pacific Food
    Summit first addressed the challenge posed by population, highlighting
    the fact that in 2010 there were ten million people living in the
    region, half of who live in urban areas, with a growth rate of four
    percent a year. It was also noted that families spend a significant
    portion of their income, between 39-50 percent, on food.\39\ Climate
    change poses a significant challenge to food security, as fisheries and
    farmland have been and will continue to be impacted. Changes in
    precipitation patterns, increased disease vectors, and loss of land all
    have immediate impacts on agricultural production and contribute to
    decreased crop biodiversity.\40\ In addition, the World Health
    Organization (WHO) notes that governments will face increasingly
    difficult demands of managing population and climate challenges
    alongside while economic growth, political stability, and self-
    sufficiency.\41\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \39\ Western Pacific Region, World Health Organization, ``Pacific
    Food Summit,'' Meeting Report (Port Vila: World Health Organization,
    April 2010): 3.
        \40\ John Campbell and Olivia Warrick, ``Climate Change and
    Migration Issues in the Pacific'' (United Nations Economic and Social
    Commission for Asia and the Pacific, Pacific Office, August 2014): 2.
        \41\ World Health Organization, ``Pacific Food Summit.'' 4.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Alongside these factors, other trends emerge across the Pacific.
    Notably, there is an increased consumption of imported foods, both as a
    product and consequence of changing global food systems. An
    increasingly urban population has contributed to shifting societal
    diets toward imported and less nutritious food. The WHO also finds
    consistent health trends across the Pacific: 70 percent of people in
    the region do not consume the recommended daily servings of fruit and
    vegetables, and obesity and diabetes rates have risen to some of the
    highest in the world.\42\ These trends of consuming more imported food
    and increased health risks are central to food security issues
    throughout the region.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \42\ Ibid: 3.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2.4  Food security in Guam
        In addition to the food security trends demonstrated to exist
    throughout the Pacific, the food security situation in Guam is
    particularly impacted by a number of highly context-specific factors.
    Among these factors is Guam's political status, which has contributed
    to the increase of cheap imported food. Imports have largely created a
    situation where there is enough to eat--sufficient food availability--
    but insufficient nutritional value. Further, adequate access and
    utilization components of food security are lacking in Guam. Food
    prices, the spread of quality nutritious food, the geographic location
    of major supermarkets, food assistance programs, and diets and popular
    consumption patterns contribute to a larger picture of poor access and
    weak utilization of healthy food. Climate and weather events, including
    effects of climate change, affect the stabilization element of food
    security in Guam.
    2.4.1  Availability and access
        There is no immediate shortage of food in Guam. During regular
    times, grocery stores are well stocked and there are a variety of
    options for purchasing food. Markets range from warehouse style stores
    and supermarkets to `mom and pop shops', farmers' markets, and roadside
    produce stands (pictured: Food availability in Guam). Food products
    vary between locally grown and imported, processed foods.
        Imports constitute approximately 90 percent of the food in Guam.
    According to recent data from the Government of Guam's Bureau of
    Statistics and Plans, food data for the 3 year period from 2011 to
    2013, estimated that annual food imports in Guam consisted of $8.25
    million in vegetables and fruits; $41 million chicken, pork, and beef;
    and $14 million fish and seafood.\43\ This figure includes commodities
    for resale; it does not include military, government, promotion, or
    personal items. The majority of all imports (of food and non-alcoholic
    beverage products and commodities) are from the United States, followed
    by Japan.\44\ In 2013, total imports comprised 68.1 percent and 57.7
    percent of all surface and air cargo respectively, while exports made
    up 11.8 percent of surface cargo and 19.9 percent of air cargo.\45\
    These figures show that import commodities largely outweigh exports.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \43\ Gena Rojas, Fred Schumann, and Maria Claret M. Ruane, ``Guam
    Farmer Survey: February-April 2014,'' PCEI Technical Report (Pacific
    Center for Economic Initiatives, University of Guam, May 2014).
        \44\ Lorileet T. Crisostomo and Albert M. Perez, ``Guam Import
    Data,'' External Trade Section (Hagatna: Bureau of Statistics and
    Plans, December 2014).
        \45\ Bureau of Statistics and Plans, ``Guam's Facts and Figures at
    a Glance 2013.''
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Food availability in Guam

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              In order clockwise:

                (1)  Locally grown produce sold by the organization Farm to
            Table
                    Guam at the Mangilao Night Market;

                (2)  a produce stand at the Saturday morning Dededo
            Farmers' Mar-
                    ket;

                (3)  canned goods at a warehouse grocery store; and

                (4)  the grocery section in a gas station market store.

        Despite high food import figures, a pilot study found that grocery
    stores in Guam lacked nutritious products. Based on the U.S. Department
    of Agriculture's Thrifty Food Plan, a majority of stores lacked an
    average of five of twelve categories of nutritious foods, and only 12
    percent of stores fulfilled eleven or more categories.\46\ SNAP
    (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) is one of the largest
    national programs to grant food benefits based on individual and
    household needs. The average benefit granted to individuals in Guam in
    2014 was $191.08, while the average for the U.S. was $125.01. Guam
    ranks second highest in the country, after Hawaii, where the average
    benefit amount was at $225.38. The household averages were $443.02 in
    Hawaii and $583.75 in Guam.\47\ Comparing prices for food, the pilot
    study found that food in Guam was 15 percent more expensive than in
    Hawaii and 49 percent higher than in the continental U.S.\48\ In 2013,
    the average income per person in Guam was $30,500,\49\ while the U.S.
    average was $54,000.\50\ Given the relatively low per capita GDP and
    high prices of food, it can be difficult for people to regularly access
    healthy food.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \46\ The Thrift Food Plan (TFP) is a measurement of the cost of
    nutritious diets. The Plan serves as the basis for the U.S. food
    assistance program allotments, SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
    Program).
        \47\ Food and Nutrition Service, ``Supplemental Nutrition
    Assistance Program: State Activity Report, Fiscal Year 2014,'' State
    Activity Report (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Program
    Accountability and Administration Division, United States Department of
    Agriculture, October 2015), www.fns.usda.gov/pd/snapmain.html.
        \48\ Rojas, Schumann, and Ruane, ``Guam Farmer Survey: February-
    April 2014.''
        \49\ Central Intelligence Agency, ``United States,'' Government,
    The World Factbook, accessed September 10, 2016, https://www.cia.gov/
    library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html.
        \50\ Central Intelligence Agency, ``United States,'' Government,
    The World Factbook, accessed September 10, 2016, https://www.cia.gov/
    library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Not only is the average food assistance benefit higher in Guam; a
    higher portion of the population depends on the assistance program.
    Comparing U.S. Census data and SNAP reports from 2014, Washington, D.C.
    had the highest percentage in the continental U.S., with approximately
    22 percent of the population on food assistance, while an estimated 29
    percent were on food assistance in Guam.\51\ Furthermore, although food
    assistance benefits are accepted at some farmers' markets in Guam,
    anecdotal evidence shows that many SNAP beneficiaries purchase mainly
    nonperishable food items in large quantities. This means families
    dependent on food assistance purchase less fresh, healthy produce and
    more imported, processed foods, which affects their health. Although
    there are adequate amounts of food on the island, the nutritional
    wealth is not equitably distributed, and many households and
    individuals depend on government assistance to purchase basic food
    items. In addition to the numbers for food assistance and per capita
    GDP, recent data shows at least 1,745 homeless people in Guam. Over 400
    of these are Chamorro and over 600 come from other islands in the
    Federated States of Micronesia.\52\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \51\ Food and Nutrition Service, ``Supplemental Nutrition
    Assistance Program: State Activity Report, Fiscal Year 2014.''
        \52\ Bureau of Statistics and Plans, ``Guam Statistical Yearbook
    2014'' (Hagatna: Office of the Governor of Guam, 2015).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Estimating the amount of local food produced in Guam is a difficult
    task. The primary challenge involves counting the farms, followed
    thereafter by the fact that not all farms keep detailed records of
    their harvests. Censuses of agriculture collected by the U.S.
    Department of Agriculture provide at least a general picture of farms
    in Guam. The Census defines a farm as any place ``from which $1,000 or
    more of agricultural products were produced and sold, or normally would
    have been sold, during a 12 month period.'' In 1993, the definition was
    set at $100. The 1940 Census found 2,529 farms. The 1998 Census found
    201 farms, approximately 65 percent of which were operated by
    individuals over 55 years of age,\53\ and the Census taken in 2014
    totaled only 104.\54\ These numbers are subject to some speculation, as
    it is often acknowledged that many farms go unaccounted for due to
    irregular record keeping, informal set-ups, and inconsistent
    communication. However, the numbers do reflect a real trend in the
    number of farms declining. Furthermore, the farmer population is
    growing older, as existing farmers age and fewer young farmers take
    their place. Further, the Guam Farmer Survey conducted by researchers
    at the University of Guam estimates that 64.62 percent of farmers gave
    unsold produce away, 3.08 percent threw it away, and 29.23 percent used
    it for personal consumption, animal feed, or other uses.\55\ These
    findings show that there is great potential for increased food sales
    through, for example, produce marketing or production of value-added
    commodities.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \53\ United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural
    Statistics Service, and Bureau of Statistics and Plans, Government of
    Guam, ``1998 Census of Agriculture: Guam,'' Census, (October 2003).
        \54\ Rojas, Schumann, and Ruane, ``Guam Farmer Survey: February-
    April 2014.''
        \55\ Ibid.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2.4.2  Utilization
        The utilization component of food security refers to whether people
    have the knowledge and means necessary for accessing and consuming a
    diet that will enable them to lead a healthy and productive life.\56\
    Health challenges in Guam have grown significantly in recent history.
    The Government of Guam Department of Public Health and Social Services
    (DPHSS) reports that Guam is facing a health crisis due to high rates
    of non-communicable diseases. The DPHSS and Non-Communicable Disease
    Consortium identify the pathway to non-communicable diseases as
    beginning with underlying causes of globalization, urbanization, and an
    aging population; aggravated by factors including an unhealthy diet;
    contributing to risk factors of obesity and high blood pressure; and
    leading to chronic diseases.\57\ Heart disease, malignant neoplasms
    (cancers), cerebrovascular disease (such as stroke or hypertension),
    diabetes, and septicemia (such as life-threatening infections) made up
    five of the top six leading causes of death in 2014.\58\ Life-style
    behaviors, including diet, have led to alarming increases in rates of
    diabetes, cancer, obesity, heart attacks, and strokes.\59\ These
    diseases cause 58.8 percent of the overall death rate, which is 8.5
    percent higher than that of the United States, as shown in Table 1.\60\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \56\ Simmons, ``Harvesting Peace: Food Security, Conflict, and
    Cooperation.''
        \57\ Government of Guam Department of Public Health and Social
    Services and Non-Communicable Disease Consortium, ``Guam Non-
    Communicable Disease Strategic Plan 2014-2018,'' Live Healthy Guam
    (Mangilao: Non-Communicable Disease Consortium, December 2013).
        \58\ Bureau of Statistics and Plans, ``Guam Statistical Yearbook
    2014.''
        \59\ V. Peter Roberto, Department of Health and Social Services,
    quoted in Western Pacific Region World Health Organization, ``Pacific
    Food Summit,'' Meeting Report (Port Vila: World Health Organization,
    April 2010).
        \60\ Office of the Governor of Guam, ``Health Revolution.''

     Table 1: Age-Adjusted NCD Death Rates per 100,000 Population, Guam and
                          the United States, 2010 \61\
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Guam            United States
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Deaths, all causes                 810.6               747.0
    \61\ Government of Guam
     Department of Public Health and
     Social Services and Non-
     Communicable Disease
     Consortium, ``Guam Non-
     Communicable Disease Strategic
     Plan 2014-2018.''
                  Heart disease                 254.9               179.1
                         Cancer                 133.6               172.8
    Cerebrovascular disease/stroke               71.6                39.1
                       Diabetes                  37.7                20.8
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        This data shows that people in Guam die from life-style and
    preventable diseases such as hypertension, strokes, heart disease, and
    diabetes at much greater rates than people in the continental U.S.
    Diets in Guam promote obesity, another contributing factor to these
    diseases, through high occurrence of fast food, processed food, high
    sugar, salt, trans fat, and highly saturated foods. In 2012, 32.4
    percent and 29.1 percent of people in Guam were considered to be
    overweight and obese, respectively.\62\ In particular, Guam childhood
    obesity rates are about 23 percent, compared with 17 percent in the
    U.S.\63\ This is partly attributed to the fact that in 2009, only about
    24 percent of people in Guam ate adequate servings of fruits and
    vegetables daily.\64\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \62\ Office of the Governor of Guam, ``Health Revolution.''
        \63\ Yvette C. Paulino, et al., ``Overweight and Obesity Prevalence
    among Public School Children in Guam,'' Journal of Health Care for the
    Poor and Underserved 26, no. 2 (May 2015): 53-62.
        \64\ Office of the Governor of Guam, ``Health Revolution.''
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Furthermore, even produce that is purchased at local grocery stores
    may lack nutritional value. Imported produce, which constitutes the
    majority of food sold in grocery stores in Guam, is harvested before it
    is fully ripe and is often ripened using gassing or other unnatural
    techniques to ensure it lasts during the shipping process and holds a
    shelf-life in stores.
        Lifestyle is an important component in considering the utilization
    and health crisis in Guam. Food sharing has been and continues to be an
    important component of social gatherings in Guam, particularly at
    fiestas. Fiestas, barbeques, and other similar events take place nearly
    every weekend in many locations throughout Guam. These events are an
    opportunity for family and community members to gather or celebrate
    special occasions, and where food is prepared in abundance. A typical
    menu includes meat and fish, rice, and cakes, among other dishes. A
    recent study on the nutritional composition of fiestas found the fiesta
    menu presented high availability of food but a nutritional imbalance.
    The availability of food is credited to a long tradition of reciprocal
    behavior in Guam, extending from early Chamorro society and exemplified
    by the exchanging of food dishes and goods today, especially at
    fiestas. Though there is plenty of food at fiestas and other events,
    there is little variety or nutritional content. Most foods at fiestas
    were found to be high in energy, fat, and saturated fat.\65\ The shift
    away from traditional foods such as breadfruit, taro, yams, and seafood
    toward lower quality imported food and cooking methods high in fat
    value affect the nutritious intake and health of many in Guam.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \65\ Paulino, et al., ``Overweight and Obesity Prevalence among
    Public School Children in Guam'': 233-44.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2.4.3  Stability
        Finally, the fourth component of food security is stability,
    whether conditions of access, availability, and utilization can be
    sustained over time. One of the factors impacting stability in Guam is
    the climate. Currently, the major factor associated with climate
    affecting food is pest management. The climate in Guam is well suited
    to many types of pests and invasive species that pose a threat to
    crops, affecting farmers' livelihoods and food production. Examples
    vary from the Ageratum yellow vein virus (AYVV) that infected tomato
    plants in northern Guam around 2007, to the brown tree snake that
    arrived more than 60 years ago and effectively led to the extinction of
    nearly every native bird species in Guam and is projected to cause
    changes in tree distributions and reductions in native trees as well as
    power outages.\66\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \66\ Vince Stricherz, ``Brown Tree Snake Could Mean Guam Will Lose
    More than Its Birds,'' UW Today, August 21, 2008, http://
    www.washington.edu/news/2008/08/21/brown-tree-snake-could-mean-guam-
    will-lose-more-than-its-birds-2.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Furthermore, climate change is affecting weather patterns and sea
    levels in the Pacific. Climate change will bring more frequent and
    intense extreme weather events and alter water and land resources, such
    as suitable farmland, fresh water availability, and fisheries.
    Throughout the Pacific, climate change is expected to contribute to an
    increase in tropical cyclone speed by up to 20 percent; variation in
    rainfall, storm and extreme weather event-related damage or destruction
    of farmland; as well as inundation of coasts, freshwater salinization,
    shifting fisheries, and increased incidence of disease.\67\ These
    events will not only affect food production and storage in Guam, but
    will impact fuel prices and transportation of imports to the island.
    When Super-typhoon Pongsona hit Guam in 2002, the storm destroyed
    infrastructure, causing power outages, loss of water pressure, and fuel
    shortages. Emergency food stamps were issued for those who lost their
    food, including some of the more than 3,000 families whose homes were
    damaged or destroyed, but gasoline stocks were so low that DPHSS
    employees struggled to get to work and many beneficiaries could not
    reach the food stamp centers.\68\ Similarly, because Guam is so reliant
    on imports, other events such as worker strikes, technical problems,
    slowed or failed negotiations, market crashes, or acts of terror could
    similarly severely impact the island's food security. These factors
    combined with Guam's increased appetite for cheap processed foods have
    left the island more susceptible to shocks in food and fuel prices.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \67\ Food Secure Pacific Working Group, ``Towards a Food Secure
    Pacific. Framework for Action on Food Security in the Pacific: 2011-
    2015.''
        \68\ Scott Radway, Mark-Alexander Pieper, and Steve Limtiaco,
    ``Gasoline Shortage Adds to Guam's Post-Typhoon Trauma,'' Pacific Daily
    News, December 12, 2002, http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/weather/news/
    2002-12-12-guam-gas-shortage_x.htm.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    3. Case study: local food initiatives in Guam
        Although food security is a multidimensional term, this case study
    focuses specifically on the concept of access. As demonstrated in
    Section 2, availability has been the focus of a number of studies and
    utilization has, at least in part, been addressed by other papers.\69\
    Stability will likely be affected by increased severe weather events
    and other effects of climate change, which could impact both local
    production and imported resources. Other events, many of which might be
    more unpredictable, such as security threats, acts of terrorism, and
    economic slumps or crashes, also have the potential to greatly impact
    the food security situation in Guam, as they could affect or interrupt
    import shipments. Meanwhile, the matter of access requires more
    research and, in this report, can best be understood through a systems
    perspective. As outlined in Section 2, access is affected by food
    prices as well as inequalities, policy and political climates, location
    of markets and stores, and other factors.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \69\ E.g., John Connell, ``Food Security in the Island Pacific: Is
    Micronesia as Far Away as Ever?,'' Regional Environmental Change, no.
    15 (2015): 1299-1311.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        This case study aims to enhance understanding of the multiple
    dimensions of food security, particularly the accessibility component.
    Specifically, this research is designed to highlight local food
    initiatives, examining goals and impacts in relation to food security,
    in relation to prospects for positive peace in Guam. The following
    sections will first explain the research methodology, including
    defining key indicators; second, discuss the research more broadly; and
    third, present the findings. These results will be further explored the
    recommendations and opportunities presented in Section 5, after a
    discussion of limitations in Section 4.
    3.1  Methodology
    3.1.1  Definitions
        There are a number of key terms that have been used throughout the
    research process and feature in this report. They are defined and
    measured as follows:
        Food security ``exists when all people, at all times, have
    physical, social, and economic access to sufficient, safe, and
    nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an
    active and healthy life.'' \70\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \70\ Jagerskog and Swain, Emerging Security Threats in the Middle
    East: The Impact of Climate Change and Globalization.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Positive peace is defined as ``peace that exceeds the absence of
    violence, as characterized by the presence of justice, fairness, well-
    being in individual and group interactions.'' \71\ Positive peace is
    measured with guidance from the Global Peace Index (GPI), which
    qualifies it as ``the attitudes, institutions, and structures that
    create and sustain peaceful societies.'' \72\ The GPI highlights eight
    factors that comprise this concept of positive peace, defined as:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \71\ Galtung, Peace by Peaceful Means: Peace and Conflict,
    Development and Civilization.
        \72\ Institute for Economics & Peace, ``Positive Peace Report:
    2015'' (New York City: Institute for Economics & Peace, October 2015).

      1.  Well-functioning government: a government that provides public
                and civil services, fosters trust, maintains political
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                stability, and upholds the rule of law.

      2.  Sound business environment: economic conditions and support for
                private businesses are sound; business operations are
                regulated properly.

      3.  Equitable distribution of resources: resources are equally and
                equitably accessible, including healthcare, education, and
                wealth.

      4.  Acceptance of the rights of others: basic human rights and
                freedoms are not only safeguarded by laws, but also
                practiced and observed through social and cultural norms.

      5.  Good relations with neighbors: peaceful relations are maintained
                with neighboring countries.

      6.  Free flow of information: free and independent media sources
                allow people to access information.

      7.  High levels of human capital: the skills, knowledge, and
                behaviors of a citizenry.

      8.  Low levels of corruption: where corruption exists, governments
                work for prevention, and also strive to hold responsible
                parties accountable.\73\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \73\ Institute for Economics & Peace, ``Positive Peace Report:
    2015.''

        Furthermore, the idea of positive peace represents society's
    ability to ``meet the needs of citizens, reduce the number of
    grievances that arise and resolve remaining disagreements without the
    use of violence.'' \74\ For this case study, specific attention was
    paid to the third indicator, to understand how local food initiatives
    affect the equitable distribution of resources. This measurement lends
    itself to better understanding the access component of food security.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \74\ Ibid: 9.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Local food initiatives are each identified based on the operating
    individual's or group's expressed interest or active involvement in the
    production, processing, selling, or consumption of local food.
    Initiatives are furthermore classified and prioritized based on the
    amount of time and activities dedicated to local food, most often a
    full-time job. A local food initiative might, for example, be a
    restaurant that strives to source ingredients locally or an
    organization focusing on different aspects of local food education,
    marketing, or production.
    3.1.2  Research design and parameters
        This research is designed as a case study with in-depth interviews
    to optimize learning about the multi-faceted stories behind local food
    initiatives, their dynamic goals, and varied methods of measuring
    success. The multiple case study design allows for an exploratory and
    interpretive approach. Opportunistic and convenience sampling
    techniques are used in order to take advantage of unexpected and
    relevant cases. This sampling technique was particularly well suited to
    this study because of the research's relation to the local community.
    Being independent and a visiting researcher lends itself to a fresh,
    unbiased, and neutral perspective. However, much of the networking and
    information sharing in Guam is informal or undocumented. For example,
    some businesses, organizations, or events are shared primarily through
    word of mouth, and might not be listed in either hardcopy, electronic,
    and online resources. In order to reach a representative and wider
    sample of local food initiatives, the researcher worked to create a
    network while simultaneously conducting interviews and gathering data.
    By first identifying the desired types of groups for contact within the
    defined ``local food initiative,'' the researcher was then able to form
    networks and navigate among contacts to facilitate interviews with
    relevant and appropriate parties.
        The target grounds identified for the sample within the definition
    of ``local food initiative'' include:

       Organizations (food or farm cooperatives, nonprofit
            organizations)

       Farms

       Educators (University research and extension service,
            educational farm)

       Vendors (restaurants, markets)

        At least two cases were selected for each target group category.
    Cases were chosen based on (1) relevance: if the case displayed a
    significant interest in local food, which was measured based on their
    stated mission and goals, as well as the types of programs they
    sponsored or in which they participated; (2) availability: many
    individuals were difficult to reach due to schedule conflicts, the
    nature of work being conducted primarily off-line; and the researcher's
    restraints due largely to the brevity of the research period; and (3)
    prominence: because this study is particularly interested in larger
    systems at play and noticeable impacts on the community, parties that
    held a prominent or growing role in the community were given first
    priority.
        This study was conducted from June to August 2016 on the Island of
    Guam. All interviews were limited to a discussion of activities on the
    island. Featured local food initiatives are all current and ongoing
    projects and all individuals interviewed are currently involved in such
    work.
    3.2  Research findings
        Anecdotally, food security is easily identified as an issue in
    Guam. Conversations around food quickly turn to a discussion of the
    reliance on imports or the recent changes in public health--including
    increased rates of obesity and diabetes--in connection with the
    processed foods that comprise a large part of many people's diets. In
    conversations as well as throughout the case study interviews, the
    primary concern seems to focus on the availability and, to a certain
    extent, utilization pillars of food security. Meanwhile, the access
    component of food security is strikingly absent from most
    conversations, research, and programming around the matter. This gap
    was the driving question behind the case study research.
    3.2.1  Trends across and between groups
        Responses during the case study interviews yielded a number of
    trends. These trends are particularly useful in understanding the
    overlaps and gaps between different sectors or initiatives happening in
    Guam. The trends can be classified into a few thematic areas. The areas
    detailed below highlight priorities suggested by the local food
    community, particularly as they relate to developing and sustaining
    positive peace. The areas of interest include market constraints for
    local produce, the lack of quality labor in the local agriculture
    sector, opportunities for improved communication among interested
    parties, and the need for education around nutrition related to local
    food. Table 2 presents the top interests comparatively across groups,
    according to their top goals, perceived impacts, and observed
    challenges.

          Table 2: Local food initiative goals, impact, and challenges
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Group             Goals            Impact            Challenges
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Farmers           Import    Job       Costs of
                      substitution      creation          farming: power and
                      Provide   Providi   water prices, etc.
                      healthy,          ng local,         Competing
                      quality,          natural food      with foreign
                      variety foods     Providi   farmers, both
                      Improve   ng for health     internationally
                      the health of     benefits          and in Guam
                      the land                            Pests and
                                                          invasive species
                                                          Weather
                                                          and climate events
                                                          Politics
                                                          Lack of
                                                          sufficient labor
    Organizations     Support   Support   Competitio
                      local farmers     ing the local     n with import
                      Encoura   economy           prices
                      ge healthy        Support   Invasive
                      eating            ing healthier     species
                      Improve   food options      Weather
                      the health of                       events
                      the island                          Poor
                                                          communication
                                                          between groups
    Educators         Import    Fosteri   Climate
                      substitution      ng young          and weather
                      Improve   people's          changes
                      crop production   interest in       Lack of
                      Encoura   farming           labor
                      ge self-          Support   Heavy use
                      sufficiency for   ing local         of chemicals on
                      more people       farmers           farms
                      Encoura                     Poor
                      ge young                            marketing for
                      farmers                             produce
                                                          Loss of
                                                          land
                                                          Weak
                                                          consumer industry
                                                          Poor
                                                          communication
                                                          between groups
    Vendors           Encoura   Providi   Unstable
                      ge healthy        ng healthy food   availability of
                      eating                              produce
                                                          Difficult
                                                          sourcing of
                                                          locally grown and
                                                          processed meats
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        All types of local food initiatives prioritized issues related to
    health, market conditions, and weather events. Discussing goals and
    perceived impact, many interviewees highlighted their focus on and
    contribution to improving the health of the island. Farms,
    organizations, educators, and vendors all stressed both their goals and
    their impacts related to producing or supporting local produce in order
    to increase peoples' nutrition and health.
        Goals, impact, and challenges for many also focused on issues
    related to the import market. Import substitution was a common goal and
    multiple interviewees also perceived one of their greatest impacts to
    be related to import substitution. Their impact in supporting the local
    economy, whether through job creation or supporting local farmers, was
    repeated several times. Furthermore, multiple respondents noted
    challenges related to the import market, such as the struggle for local
    farmers to remain competitive with imports in light of the high costs
    they face.
        Finally, challenges related to climate change and weather events
    also featured prominently in groups' responses. Many interviewees cited
    weather events such as storms and typhoons that destroy crops, damage
    infrastructure and property, or hinder production, as well as changes
    in weather patterns and related pest issues as major challenges facing
    the local food community.
    3.2.2  Potential for positive peace
        1. Favorable market conditions for local produce

        Nearly all interviewees commented on the current market conditions
    as a barrier to increasing local food production and consumption in
    Guam. Many individuals estimate that local products make up less than
    ten percent of what is currently sold in Guam. Farmers cannot
    realistically dedicate the necessary time or resources to producing at
    high capacity unless they are confident of a return on their
    investment. If there existed a greater space in the market or a higher
    priority on selling local food and locally produced value-added goods,
    farmers would be better able to increase their production.

        Opportunities and positive peace

        A key opportunity here is to conduct a study about market
    conditions and capacity. Many people reported that produce is grown in
    response to farmers and others' perception of what customers look for
    or request. A survey would be helpful in capturing information about
    what type of produce is currently being produced, as well as better
    articulating what produce is needed and wanted in Guam to suit the
    economy, diet, and growing conditions, and evaluating the potential for
    more value-added products. Furthermore, this type of research could be
    expanded to help establish appropriate, standardized price lists.
        Another opportunity for enhancing market conditions would be to
    assist farmers in expanding their options in the type of vendors they
    supply. There are currently several farmers' markets in Guam and many
    food stands selling local produce. Though some farmers already sell to
    local grocery stores, there seems to be strong potential for more to do
    so. The feasibility study might further explore such an opportunity. It
    will also be important for local farmers to expand beyond these
    outlets. For example, hospitals, schools, hotels, and the military are
    all large markets with significant purchasing power. Greater
    organization of farmers through cooperatives or other community
    organizations guided by reliable and recent research would be helpful
    in facilitating these processes.
        These initiatives stand to make a substantial contribution to
    positive peace on the island. Greater availability of local food in the
    market could lead to more competitive prices. This would make healthy
    food potentially more accessible to larger groups of people, such as
    those limited to buying less expensive options. Favorable market
    conditions could also encourage farmers to produce not only more food,
    but also a greater variety of produce. More availability, choice, and
    reliability of local produce in stores could help create a shift in how
    people buy and what they eat. Presumably, this would benefit farmers'
    livelihoods, consumer budgets, and public health.

        2. Sufficient labor in local agriculture

        Not only are there far fewer farms in Guam today than there were 40
    or 50 years ago, but the farmer demographic is aging. Existing farmers
    tend to be older and there is a lack of interest or commitment among
    younger generations to take on farming either as a family tradition or
    new endeavor. This tendency has been attributed to growing jobs in the
    military or government, and more generally toward urbanization. More
    people are moving to urban areas or looking to work in office
    environments, rather than in farm fields.
        Existing farmers also struggle to find enough quality labor to help
    in their fields. Several farmers and other interviewees who work
    closely with farmers noted that there is not sufficient quality labor
    available. They cited struggles to find abled individuals with strong
    work ethic who could adequately contribute to farm productivity. Many
    also noted an increasing number of foreign-owned farmers or foreign
    workers on farms. Interviewees noted that foreign-owned farms may not
    pay the same fees and dues as local farmers, such as social security
    taxes or a minimum wage to workers, and that they might source
    pesticides and other goods through unofficial channels. This is
    perceived to create not only an imbalanced cost scenario, but also the
    potential of serious risks to the environment and food safety.

        Opportunities and positive peace

        One avenue for addressing the labor issues is through increased
    education. Some nonprofit organizations, community groups, and academic
    institutions focus on involving students and young people in the
    agricultural process. Weekend science programs, field trips to farms,
    school farming and gardening initiatives, and educational programs
    teaching basic nutrition represent such efforts to shift eating habits,
    connect young people to their land, and reintroduce an appreciation for
    farming. Greater support of such efforts through official channels,
    such as government programming, conducive policy framework, targeted
    grant programs, and dedicated resources could greatly improve the
    situation.
        Involving more young people in farming and agriculture stands to
    contribute to Guam's overall positive peace. Such efforts could yield
    greater interest among young people for farm work, farm ownership or
    operation, support of local agriculture, and healthy and nutritious
    diets based on local food. In turn, such outcomes could lead to
    improvements in the industry, enhanced production, preservation and
    further development of local and traditional knowledge, circulation of
    money in the local economy, as well as a more diversified economy and
    improved island health. Though these changes may take years to be
    realized, education is a crucial component of fostering the process and
    long-term change.

        3. Enhanced communication among local-food interest groups

        A number of interviewees emphasized the need for better
    communication between the many different actors in Guam who are working
    in local food. Repeatedly, there was reference to the perception that
    different groups act either without regard for or without consultation
    of other related groups. For instance, the perception of programs being
    conducted without specific care for farmers' interests; distributors,
    vendors, and farmers all misunderstanding the constraints that keep
    them from reaching local-food goals; or grants that are received
    without the recipient group being fully aware of what is necessary or
    without being able to properly carry out the specified activities.
        These perceptions were found across groups: among and within farms,
    organizations, educators, and vendors. Although these perceptions are
    not always accurate, or only partially correct, they point to a more
    important issue: there is room for more effective communication among
    local-food interests in Guam.

        Opportunities and positive peace

        Sharing knowledge, resources, and data among different actors and
    sectors could potentially reduce redundancies in work; increase all
    sectors' productivity, through enhanced resources and opportunities;
    and support more democratic decision-making and boost community support
    or public buy-in.
        One example of this is in discussion of organic certification.
    Although there are a number of individuals who are trained in organic
    certification in Guam, there is not yet an organic certification board
    on the island. Without this board, produce in Guam cannot be marketed
    as an organic product. Perceptions vary as to whether this step is
    truly necessary. A study might be useful in determining whether there
    is a significant demand for organic produce in Guam. Further
    identifying key priorities for actively engaging farmers, distributors,
    and vendors would be essential to successfully implementing an organic
    certification process. Alternatives to organics might also be a
    worthwhile consideration. Establishing a system similar to that of
    Hawaii Organic might be more context-appropriate and could potentially
    meet the needs of the local community more effectively.
        A more connected community with strong networks stands to be more
    resilient. Networks provide and facilitate connections between and
    within sectors to address challenges and embrace opportunities. For
    instance, strong lines of communication and more direct collaboration
    could mean academic and civil organizations would be better equipped to
    build on each others' strengthens and contribute more efficiently to
    shared goals and objectives. Such networks could also be more apt at
    navigating market or political systems or pushing for necessary
    changes. Sharing resources to address challenges fosters greater
    resiliency that will be crucial as Guam faces increased impacts of
    globalization, militarization, and climate change.

        4. Targeted education highlighting nutritional benefits of local
    food

        Almost all interviewees stressed the importance of the health
    benefits of local food. This is not surprising, given that the health
    challenges currently facing the island are largely food related, such
    as diabetes, obesity, and other diseases. Several cases also noted the
    need for increased education to promote the benefits of local food and
    teach young people and families about the impact their diet has on
    their health. In another example that emerged during interviews, a
    local restaurant owner leads weekend programs about nutrition and to
    teach families how to adopt more healthy diets. Although some such
    education efforts already exist, more is needed in order to combat
    current unhealthy diet trends and widespread consumption of imported,
    highly processed foods.

        Opportunities and positive peace

        In addition to restaurants or other businesses and community groups
    leading such education efforts, there are a number of other entry
    points for incorporating nutrition education. School lunch programs and
    health classes are natural fits for teaching about the benefits of
    eating healthy. Schools, businesses, and community groups focusing on
    health programming should strengthen connections with the health sector
    as well. In response to the health crisis, more public health
    campaigns, local clinics, and organizations promoting health have
    emerged. Partnerships between these initiatives and actors in the local
    food sector could be mutually beneficial.
        Such intersectional efforts could reach a wider audience by
    introducing campaigns at large community gatherings. For example, more
    healthy food stands or stalls that promote an understanding of healthy
    lifestyles in connection with local produce might be well suited at the
    Wednesday evening Chamorro Village or other events with large
    audiences. Local village marts also provide good settings for expanding
    nutrition education. Local marts often hold prominent roles in the
    community and many become destinations for individuals and families to
    look for specific products. Featuring nutrition information and healthy
    options regularly at such locations has the potential for nutrition
    efforts to reach more people in a way that would also benefit local
    businesses.
        Efforts to improve the overall health of the island through a
    local-food approach would have wide reaching benefits for positive
    peace. Aside from enhancing well-being directly through contributing to
    healthier lifestyles, such efforts could also benefit the business
    community, more equitably distribute resources and make information
    more readily accessible. Integrating nutrition information more widely
    and mainstreaming local food across such initiatives is an effective
    way of addressing multiple challenges currently facing Guam, especially
    if done through cross-sectional and collaborative channels.
    3.2.3  Further areas for exploration
        Although interviews covered a wide range of responses and
    highlighted many important issues facing the local food community in
    Guam, there were certain topics that remained underrepresented in
    conversations. These topics may warrant further consideration and
    examination. In particular, this report found that food initiatives
    either lacked or did not prioritize the following:

      1.  Diversified access to local food--More attention should be
                dedicated to understanding who has access to local, healthy
                food. For example, physical points of sale for local food
                at farmers' markets, food stands, or grocery stores, may be
                inaccessible to some people. Prices of food may further
                exclude some people from buying or producing local food.
                Particular attention should be paid to whether these
                occurrences disproportionately impact certain groups that
                may be in vulnerable or disadvantaged situations owing to
                their socioeconomic, geographic, or other situations. For
                example, data should be compiled to highlight intersections
                between demographics (socioeconomic, ethnic, racial, age,
                gender, etc.), health, reliance on food assistance
                benefits, homelessness, geographic location, and
                nutritional consumption. Alternative approaches to
                improving food accessibility might be considered, such as
                implementing policies to support job growth and nutrition
                interventions, rather than simply increasing food benefits.
                The Community Food Security Assessment Toolkit, available
                through the Electronic Publications from the Food
                Assistance and Nutrition Research Program, highlights
                techniques for such data collection with regard to
                community leadership in assessing all aspects of household
                food security.

      2.  Focus on traditions and culture values--A small number of
                interviewees highlighted connections to traditional
                knowledge, practices, and food. Increasing attention to
                this component could serve the local food community in a
                number of ways, not least of which include preserving
                indigenous species of plants. These benefits would
                contribute to the overall health and biodiversity of the
                island and could potentially encourage production of goods
                and services for the tourism industry that would boost the
                local economy. Furthermore, indigenous and local knowledge
                and practices such as risk management and resource
                preservation make important contributions to local food
                security and should be further recognized and actively
                engaged.

      3.  Connection to colonialism--The policies, practices, and current
                situation in Guam is inexplicably tied to not only the
                legacy of historic colonialism, but also to Guam's current
                political status as an unincorporated organized territory
                of the U.S. Understanding and addressing historical and
                modern impacts Guam's political status are essential to
                forming a complete picture of the food security situation
                and to take effective steps to remedy harms and provide for
                positive, sustained growth that focuses most on the needs
                of the local community.

        Excluding these topics may prevent a complete understanding and
    thorough approaches necessary for strengthening local food initiatives
    and benefiting the community. As the local food community continues to
    grow in Guam, it will be important to address these and other issues
    that may arise in order to better serve the entire community and to
    foster food security as well as positive peace.
    4. Limitations
        There were a number of factors limiting this research. Primarily,
    time was a major obstacle. This affected which groups were included in
    the study and the overall spread of the research. The time constraints
    on this research limited the type of data that could be collected. An
    extended research period and more collaboration with local actors would
    allow this case study to benefit from a mixed methods approach, such as
    combining the interviews with surveys to capture, for example, more
    consumer experiences. Furthermore, a research period that allowed for
    baseline data collection regarding positive peace indicators, as well
    as a data collection at a future point would allow for useful
    comparisons to track developments and measure impact of local food
    initiatives on positive peace.
        Another factor limiting this research was the lack of relevant
    data. For example, it was noted that farm Census data has not been
    consistently collected and available results are not completely
    reliable. This meant that assessing the number of farms and levels of
    farm production is difficult in Guam. Furthermore, some studies on
    aspects of food security have been initiated and either not completed
    or not published. The lack of publicly available research and
    consistent, reliable data on this topic is a barrier to those seeking
    to create well-informed projects based on data and facts. Further
    research will help address this gap.
    5. Recommendations
      1.  Enhanced understanding of the food security situation--Effective
                action around food security must build on accurate and
                updated information. Studies, data collection, and analysis
                should be continued and increasingly collaborate with
                community stakeholders. This would contribute to available
                knowledge practically so as to better meet the needs of the
                community. Areas for further study might include:

        a.  Farmer surveys to measure productivity, types of produce being
                grown, po-
                  tential for increased capacity, etc.;

        b.  Consumer interest and market space for greater variety of local
                produce;

        c.  Potential for introducing more value-added products;

        d.  Surveys and studies to better understand market saturation and
                opportuni-
                  ties; and

        e.  Research on connections between population demographics and
                access to
                  and utilization of healthy food.

      2.  Expanded education on nutrition--Increased public awareness and
                understanding around basic nutrition and links between diet
                and health are crucial to improving food security. There is
                much work being done in Guam to improve health,
                specifically to decrease rates of diabetes and other
                diseases. This work could be combined with efforts to raise
                awareness of the health benefits to eating local produce.
                Integrating knowledge and action around health and local
                food through nutrition would benefit people's well-being
                and support local agriculture.

      3.  Encouraging young farmers--Programs targeting and engaging young
                people in food systems could help encourage more of them to
                work on or start farms. Education in schools and training
                programs to introduce young people to farming and allow
                them to experience it are important steps toward increasing
                the number of local farmers and shifting the farmer
                demographic to include a younger population. This will also
                help to build continuity of skills and productivity and to
                pass on local knowledge, both of which are increasingly
                important as the current farming population ages.

      4.  Market expansion--Studies and surveys could provide greater
                potential for expanding the market. Large opportunities
                exist in Guam that are relatively underdeveloped for local
                farmers. Opportunities for farmers to expand to supply
                other vendors besides typical grocery stores and farmers'
                markets could include contracts or arrangements with the
                tourism industry and military. The tourism industry is
                projected to continue growing. With many hotels and
                restaurants, there is potential to market ``local food'' as
                a selling point for tourists and for local food sales to
                increase. There is also an expected increase in military
                presence. While this may have other effects on the food
                security situation, one opportunity might be to work with
                the military to supply local food both to base stores in
                Guam and to export food from Guam to other U.S. military
                bases. This opportunity could be beneficial to military
                personnel and their families by enhancing their quality of
                life and healthy food options, and to farmers in Guam
                through added demand for their produce.

      5.  Improved communication and coordination--Stronger channels of
                communication between interested groups in Guam would
                enhance the opportunities available to individual groups
                and the collective of local food initiatives, benefitting
                the food security situation. Between academics, policy
                makers, nonprofits, business, and farmers, there are many
                different goals and strategies for addressing food security
                dilemmas. Sharing knowledge, data, and resources more
                effectively both within and across these groups could
                benefit food security efforts and improve the overall
                resiliency of the island.

      7.  Targeted food accessibility programs *--Equitable distribution is
                a key factor in achieving food security. Using data to
                assess the community's food security situation could
                indicate which individuals and groups are in more
                vulnerable situations. This information could influence
                targeted programming to ensure that assistance programs do
                not reinforce harmful power structures and that food is
                equitably accessible.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        * Editor's note: the numbered entry for 6 was not in the report as
    submitted. It has be reproduced herein as it was published.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    6. Conclusion
        Food is connected both as a cause and consequence of conflict and
    is reciprocally linked to peace. Violence can lead to or exacerbate
    food insecurity by disrupting food production, interrupting
    distribution, hindering investment in food sectors, or destroying
    infrastructure and assets. Likewise, food insecurity has been shown to
    be a contributing factor in conflict, though not definitively as a
    cause in itself. Food can aggravate conflict through, among other
    things, contributing to riots and instability over food price spikes,
    resource competition, and inequalities. Food is also a means for
    achieving or stabilizing peace. Food resources are essential to
    fostering household and country resiliency and can enable a community
    to adapt to, recover from, and thrive after conflict.
        The Pacific islands have faced particular challenges in achieving
    food security. Population, climate change, and governance have and are
    projected to continue to influence food security. In Guam, these
    factors are further complicated by context-specific factors. Perhaps
    most consequential to food security in Guam are the island's political
    status and related trade policies, the widespread dependence on food
    assistance, a market economy that favors imports, and diet trends that
    have contributed to poor nutrition and a health crisis.
        This report has highlighted different aspects of food security in
    Guam and analyzed these factors in the context of positive peace. Guam
    has been shaped by history that is rich in indigenous and local
    knowledge and skills. The Chamorro people have long been a self-
    sufficient people. Developments in globalization and militarization
    have greatly influenced this and other aspects of life on the island.
    Modern political, economic, social, and other developments have had
    many positive impacts on the daily life of people in Guam, but have
    also contributed to challenges and obstacles to realizing positive
    peace, including food security.
        Strengthening the presence and consumption of local food in Guam
    offers the potential to improve the well-being of the population. Local
    food plays an important part in the food security situation on the
    island and relates to the pillars of positive peace. According to
    findings presented by the International Food Policy Research Institute
    (IFPRI), national level food security is required before household food
    security can be achieved.\75\ This means that availability of food must
    be secured before access and utilization can be fully realized and
    enjoyed. This requires more government policies and investments,
    whereas household security can be built through specific programs.\76\
    Food quantity and options are widely available in Guam. Grocery stores
    are well stocked under normal conditions and vendors carry a wide range
    of food options. The recommendations outlined in this report lend
    themselves to further strengthening this, targeting availability and
    stability aspects of food security through strengthening the local
    economy, supporting local farmers, and mitigating and adapting to
    effects of climate and other impacts. The recommendations further aim
    to enhance the accessibility and utilization aspects of food security
    through addressing health issues and ensuring equitable access to
    healthy local food.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \75\ Breisinger, et al., ``Building Resilience for Food and
    Nutrition Security.''
        \76\ Ibid.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In addition to the limitations previously addressed, this study's
    attempts to link food security and positive peace have been relatively
    incomplete. As stated, efforts to define and evaluate the current food
    security situation have been hindered by the lack of consistent and
    reliable data. Although there are studies on specific aspects of food
    security, researchers and practitioners in Guam have identified gaps in
    available data, such as the inconsistent farmer surveys. This kind of
    data is essential for forming a holistic picture of the situation, as
    well as for understanding finer aspects, such as equitable access to
    nutritious food across demographics. In the context of this case study,
    these obstacles made it difficult to have a well-informed perspective
    of food security necessary to then discuss food in relation to positive
    peace.
        In order to better understand how food security will contribute to
    positive peace, there is a need for better metrics on both subjects.
    More disaggregated data concerning the current food security situation
    is needed, including information on what farmers produce, potential for
    greater production and value-added products, nutrition consumption, and
    household food security detailed by demographic. The interviews in this
    case study provided a useful basis for considering how local food
    initiatives currently impact and aim to influence aspects of positive
    peace and well-being through local food. These conversations and the
    recommendations that emerged from interviews are valuable and would
    further benefit from an analysis of positive peace indicators. Positive
    peace indicators and information about the food security situation
    before, during, and after World War II, as well the current situation
    and future projections would not only enhance understanding of the
    relationship between conflict, peace, and food, but also help shape
    future efforts so as to effectively contribute to positive peace.
        Food security promises to be an increasingly important
    consideration for Guam, other Pacific islands, and beyond. As factors
    such as globalization and climate change continue to impact food
    production and distribution, it will be essential to better understand
    the multi-faceted dynamics of food security. Addressing food security
    continues to be a matter of ensuring people have enough to eat and that
    no one is limited by hunger or perishes due to starvation. But in
    communities where there is negative peace, where people are not
    actively engaged in conflict, food security takes on added importance
    in contributing to the greater well-being of society. Adaptive measures
    must benefit food security in a way that fosters positive peace. Food
    security is essential if society is to do more than survive; it is
    paramount to our ability to thrive.

                                   References

        Barrett, Christopher B. ``Food or Consequences: Food Security and
     Its Implications for Global Sociopolitical Stability.'' In Food
     Security and Sociopolitical Stability, edited by Christopher B.
     Barrett, 1-34. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.
        Breisinger, Clemens, Olivier Ecker, Jean-Franois Maystadt, Jean-
     Francois Trinh Tan, Perrihan Al-Riffai, Khalida Bouzar, Abdelkarim Sma,
     and Mohamed Abdelgadir. ``Building Resilience for Food and Nutrition
     Security.'' In International Food Policy Research Institute, 1-34,
     2014.
        Bureau of Statistics and Plans. ``Guam Statistical Yearbook 2014.''
     Hagatna: Office of the Governor of Guam, 2015.
        ___. ``Guam's Facts and Figures at a Glance 2013.'' Hagatna: Office
     of the Governor of Guam, 2014.
        Campbell, John, and Olivia Warrick. ``Climate Change and Migration
     Issues in the Pacific.'' United Nations Economic and Social Commission
     for Asia and the Pacific, Pacific Office, August 2014.
        Carano, Paul, and Pedro C. Sanchez. A Complete History of Guam. 9th
     ed. Rutland and Tokyo: Charles E. Tuttle Company, 1982.
        Central Intelligence Agency. ``Guam.'' The World Factbook. Accessed
     September 10, 2016. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-
     factbook/geos/gq.html.
        ___. ``United States.'' Government. The World Factbook. Accessed
     September 10, 2016. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-
     factbook/geos/us.html.
        Connell, John. ``Food Security in the Island Pacific: Is Micronesia
     as Far Away as Ever?'' Regional Environmental Change, no. 15 (2015):
     1299-1311.
        Crisostomo, Lorileet T., and Albert M. Perez. ``Guam Import Data.''
     External Trade Section. Hagatna: Bureau of Statistics and Plans,
     December 2014.
        De Schutter, Oliver. ``International Trade in Agriculture and the
     Right to Food.'' In Dialogue on Globalization, 46: 1-52. Occasional
     Papers. Geneva: Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, 2009.
        Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,
     International Fund for Agricultural Development, and World Food
     Programme. ``The State of Food Insecurity in the World. Meeting the
     2015 International Hunger Targets: Taking Stock of Uneven Progress.''
     Rome, 2015. http://www.fao.org/hunger/en/.
        Food and Nutrition Service. ``Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
     Program: State Activity Report, Fiscal Year 2014.'' State Activity
     Report. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Program
     Accountability and Administration Division, United States Department of
     Agriculture, October 2015. www.fns.usda.gov/pd/snapmain.html.
        Food Secure Pacific. ``Summit Outcomes Document: Pacific Food
     Summit.'' Port Vila, April 2010.
        Food Secure Pacific Working Group. ``Towards a Food Secure Pacific.
     Framework for Action on Food Security in the Pacific: 2011-2015.'' Port
     Vila, 2010.
        Galtung, Johan, and International Peace Research Institute, Oslo.
     Peace by Peaceful Means: Peace and Conflict, Development and
     Civilization. Vol. 14. Peace and Conflict, Development and
     Civilization. London: GB: SAGE Publications Ltd, 1996.
        Goure, Daniel. ``The Jones Act and Homeland Security in the 21st
     Century.'' The Lexington Institute, July 2016. http://
     lexingtoninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Jones-Act-and-
     Homeland-Security.pdf.
        Government of Guam Department of Public Health and Social Services,
     and Non-Communicable Disease Consortium. ``Guam Non-Communicable
     Disease Strategic Plan 2014-2018.'' Live Healthy Guam. Mangilao: Non-
     Communicable Disease Consortium, December 2013.
        Gruhl, Werner. Imperial Japan's World War Two, 1931-1945.
     Transaction Publishers, 2007.
        Guam Visitors Bureau. ``Vision 2020.'' Tumon: Guam Visitors Bureau,
     2014.
        Henson, Laura. ``Emmy Simmons: To Improve Food Security and Prevent
     Conflict, Think and Commit Long Term.'' New Security Beat, Wilson
     Center's Environmental Change and Security Program, October 4, 2013.
     https://www.newsecuritybeat.org/2013/10/emmy-simmons-overview-
     highlights-harvesting-peace-food-security-conflict-cooperation/1/2.
        Institute for Economics & Peace. ``Positive Peace Report: 2015.''
     New York City: Institute for Economics & Peace, October 2015.
        Jagerskog, Anders, and Ashok Swain. Emerging Security Threats in the
     Middle East: The Impact of Climate Change and Globalization. London:
     Rowman & Littlefield, 2016.
        Jennewein, Chris. ``Hunter Named `Champion of Maritime' For Support
     of Shipbuilding.'' Times of San Diego. September 30, 2015. http://
     timesofsandiego.com/politics/2015/09/30/hunter-named-champion-of-
     maritime-for-support-of-shipbuilding/.
        Letman, John. ``Proposed US Military Buildup on Guam Angers Locals
     Who Liken It to Colonization.'' The Guardian, August 1, 2016.
        Messer, Ellen, and Marc J. Cohen. ``Conflict, Food Insecurity, and
     Globalization.'' International Food Policy Research Institute, May
     2006, 1-45.
        Morris, Charles. ``Guam.'' Guam: Department of Public Health and
     Social Services, 2003.
        Natividad, LisaLinda, and Gwyn Kirk. ``Fortress Guam: Resistance to
     the US Military Mega-Buildup.'' The Asia-Pacific Journal, Japan Focus,
     8, no. 19 (May 2010): 1-17.
        Office of the Governor of Guam. ``Health Revolution.'' State of the
     Island Address. Hagatna, 2014.
        Paulino, Yvette C., Rachael T. Leon Guerrero, and Charissa M. Agoun.
     ``Nutritional Analysis of a Fiesta on Guam.'' Micronesica 40, no. 1/2
     (January 1, 2008): 233-44.
        Paulino, Yvette C., Rachael T. Leon Guerrero, Alyssa A. Ucangco,
     Mary Grace Rosadino, Julietta C. Quinene, and Zenaida N. Natividad.
     ``Overweight and Obesity Prevalence among Public School Children in
     Guam.'' Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved 26, no. 2
     (May 2015): 53-62.
        Radway, Scott, Mark-Alexander Pieper, and Steve Limtiaco. ``Gasoline
     Shortage Adds to Guam's Post-Typhoon Trauma.'' Pacific Daily News,
     December 12, 2002. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/weather/news/2002-12-
     12-guam-gas-shortage_x.htm.
        Rogers, Robert F. Destiny's Landfall: A History of Guam. Honolulu:
     University of Hawaii Press, 1995.
        Rojas, Gena, Fred Schumann, and Maria Claret M. Ruane. ``Guam Farmer
     Survey: February-April 2014.'' PCEI Technical Report. Pacific Center
     for Economic Initiatives, University of Guam, May 2014.
        Simmons, Emmy. ``Harvesting Peace: Food Security, Conflict, and
     Cooperation.'' Environmental Change and Security Program Report.
     Washington, D.C.: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars,
     2013.
        Stricherz, Vince. ``Brown Tree Snake Could Mean Guam Will Lose More
     than Its Birds.'' UW Today, August 21, 2008. http://www.washington.edu/
     news/2008/08/21/brown-tree-snake-could-mean-guam-will-lose-more-than-
     its-birds-2.
        United Nations General Assembly. ``Information from Non-Self
     Governing Territories Transmitted under Article 73e of the Charter of
     the United Nations, Report of the Secretary-General.'' United Nations,
     2015. http://www.un.org/en/events/nonselfgoverning/
     nonselfgoverning.shtml.
        United States Census Bureau. ``Guam Demographic Profile Summary
     File: 2010 Census of Population and Housing,'' March 2014.
        United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural
     Statistics Service, and Bureau of Statistics and Plans, Government of
     Guam. ``1998 Census of Agriculture: Guam.'' Census, October 2003.
        United States House of Representatives. 48 U.S.C. Ch. 16: Delegates
     to Congress, Title 48--Territories and Insular Possessions. Title VII,
      712, 122 Stat. 868. Vol. 48 U.S.C. 1752, 2008. United States Senate.
     46. U.S.C.  50101 et seq., 2006.
        ___. Merchant Marine Act. 41 Stat. 988, 1920.
        World Health Organization, Western Pacific Region. ``Pacific Food
     Summit.'' Meeting Report. Port Vila: World Health Organization, April
     2010.

                                     ______

                             Submitted Legislation
    H.R. 8489, Price Reform In Cattle Economics Act (PRICE Act)
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    H.R. 5680, Saving Workers by Eliminating Economic Tampering and
            Ensuring Reliability Act (SWEETER Act)

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
                                     ______

     Submitted Report by Hon. Dusty Johnson, a Representative in Congress
                               from South Dakota

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Boxed Beef & Fed Cattle Price Spread Investigation Report

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
              [Beef cattle standing in a field.]

    July 22, 2020
    Table of Contents
    I. Introduction
    II. Summary of Market Impacts of the Tyson Holcomb Fire
    III. General Beef Industry Market Conditions Pre-Fire
    IV. Plant Closure and Initial Market Reactions
    V. Summary of Market Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic
    VI. General Beef Industry Market Conditions Pre-Pandemic
    VII. Market Reactions
    VIII. Continued Vigilance
    IX. Figure 1 and Figure 2

        Average Weekly Negotiated Price--All Cattle Dressed Basis
        Weekly Choice Beef Cutout

    X. Figure 3 and Figure 4

        Negotiated Choice Cutout/Cattle Price Spread
        Fed Cattle--% Weekly Negotiated Cash Sales

    XI. Figure 5 and Figure 6

        Weekly Est. Federally Inspected Beef Production
        Weekly Slaughtered Cattle Purchase Type Breakdown

    XII. Other Considerations

        a. Price Reporting and Transparency
        b. Risk Management Solutions
        c. Small Processor and Cooperative Opportunities
        d. P&S Act Updates and Enforcement

    XIII. Conclusion

        Appendix: Price Discovery through Livestock Mandatory Reporting
        Appendix References
    Introduction
        The markets and processing systems responsible for the production
    and sale of U.S. beef were disrupted by two separate events in 2019 and
    2020. The first occurred when the Tyson Fresh Meats (Tyson) beef
    packing plant in Holcomb, Kansas closed for 4 months following a fire
    at the facility on August 9, 2019, which disrupted processing systems
    and markets. The second occurred as COVID-19 spread throughout the U.S.
    in 2020, which resulted in further and more significant market
    disruptions.
        In the weeks and months after both events, the difference--or
    spread--between the Choice boxed beef cutout values and dressed fed
    cattle prices rose to records levels. In response to the rising
    spreads, the Secretary of Agriculture directed the U.S. Department of
    Agriculture's (USDA) Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) to
    investigate the fed cattle and beef market impacts from the Tyson fire
    and then expand the investigation to include the COVID-19 impacts. The
    purpose of the investigation is to examine whether any regulated
    entities violated the Packers and Stockyards Act by taking advantage of
    the situation through price manipulation, collusion, restrictions of
    competition, or other unfair practices.
        This report, prepared by AMS in coordination with USDA's Office of
    the Chief Economist, first summarizes market conditions, fed cattle
    prices, boxed beef values, and the spread before and after the fire and
    plant closure at the Tyson Holcomb plant. The report then summarizes
    market conditions, fed cattle prices, boxed beef values, and the spread
    before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. It does not examine potential
    violations of the Packers and Stockyards Act. The investigation into
    potential violations is ongoing, and therefore, AMS has limited ability
    to publicly report the full scope and status of the investigation.
    Summary of Market Impacts of the Tyson Holcomb Fire
        The closure of the Tyson beef packing plant in Holcomb, Kansas,
    following the August 9, 2019 fire at the facility, disrupted the
    markets and processing systems responsible for the production and sale
    of U.S. beef. The plant accounted for approximately five to six percent
    of the nation's beef processing capacity. The largest difference--or
    spread--between the dressed fed cattle price and the Choice boxed beef
    cutout value (since the inception of Mandatory Price Reporting \1\ in
    2001) was recorded at $67.17/cwt. after the Tyson Holcomb fire. That
    record was later exceeded following the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020
    discussed later in this report.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/mmr/lmr.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        This report's analysis takes into consideration: trends and
    conditions in these markets before the fire; seasonal demand for beef
    heading into the Labor Day holiday weekend; packers, cattle sellers,
    and beef buyers' responses to the plant closure; and the impacts on
    dressed fed cattle prices and Choice boxed beef cutout values. Key
    observations from this analysis include the following:

      1.  The timing of the fire in early August coincided with the
                seasonal increase in boxed beef demand leading up to the
                Labor Day holiday weekend. Typically, many retailers make
                pricing and promotional decisions several weeks in advance
                of the Labor Day holiday.

      2.  Futures prices for fed cattle decreased significantly in the days
                immediately after the fire. Fed cattle markets then
                followed with price decreases.

      3.  Shortly after the fire, packers increased their processing volume
                primarily through the addition of Saturday slaughter
                shifts.

      4.  There was a marked drop in the number and percentage of
                negotiated cash sales of fed cattle immediately after the
                fire.

      5.  The plant closure appeared to affect the spread between boxed
                beef values and fed cattle prices. The spread between the
                two peaked at a then-record high of $67.17/cwt. the week
                ending August 24, while the same week in 2016-2018 averaged
                a spread of $27.66/cwt., leaving a difference of $39.51/
                cwt. or 143 percent.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ The difference between the weekly average negotiated Choice
    boxed beef cutout value and the weekly average negotiated price for
    steers and heifers sourced from the National Weekly Direct Slaughter
    Cattle--Negotiated Purchases (https://www.ams.usda.gov/mnreports/
    ams_2481.pdf) report using an average of the dressed basis and live
    basis prices where the live basis price is converted to a dressed basis
    by dividing by an average steer/heifer dressing percentage of 63%. This
    places cattle prices on a dressed basis for comparison to the Choice
    beef cutout.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    General Beef Industry Market Conditions Pre-Fire
        USDA Market News collects industry data from a number of data
    sources on boxed beef cutout values, fed cattle prices, and calculates
    the spread between boxed beef cutout values and fed cattle prices. AMS
    also collects data on the percentage of fed cattle purchase types and
    beef production. These data are shown in Figures 1 through 6, and the
    sources of the data are footnoted in this report.
        In the weeks prior to the fire, market conditions were stable,
    roughly in line with seasonal trends expected in cattle and beef
    markets. The Cattle on Feed report estimated 11.5 million head of
    cattle on feed on July 1, 2019, the highest July inventory since 1996.
    The ratio of heifers to steers steadily increased from 2018 to 2019,
    resulting in lighter overall carcass weights. The lighter carcass
    weights reduced projections for overall beef production despite the
    increased inventory of cattle on feed.
        Fed cattle prices moved lower before partially recovering from June
    to July 2019, while beef prices declined over the same period (Figures
    1 and 2). Based on historical data, the beef price decline was to be
    expected, as July typically sees a reduction in boxed beef demand
    following the Independence Day holiday before it rebounds through
    August as Labor Day approaches. Conditions prior to the fire appeared
    consistent with this expectation, and the negotiated Choice cutout
    value ended July down three percent from the previous month.
        With cattle prices increasing in July and beef prices decreasing,
    the spread between the dressed weight prices paid for fed cattle and
    Choice cutout values narrowed to $31.04/cwt. by the end of the month
    (Figure 3).
    Plant Closure and Initial Market Reactions
        The fire occurred mid-evening on a Friday when many cattle and beef
    marketing institutions had closed for the weekend. At the time of the
    fire, industry estimates indicated the Holcomb plant was harvesting
    approximately 30,000 head of fed cattle each week, accounting for five
    to six percent of the weekly U.S. fed cattle slaughter totals. Tyson
    indicated that due to the excessive damage, including a partial roof
    collapse, the plant would be closed for an unknown period of time.
    Impact on Production
        USDA Market News collects packer self-reported estimates of daily
    fed cattle slaughter and releases that report every weekday.\3\
    Immediately following the fire, packers reported that slaughter numbers
    for every day of the first week post fire would be lower compared to
    the previous week, suggesting a reduction in slaughter capacity post
    fire. Estimates indicating additional Saturday shifts for August 17
    were not available until the afternoon of Friday, August 16.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Sourced from the Estimated Daily Livestock Slaughter Under
    Federal Inspection (https://www.ams.usda.gov/mnreports/sj_ls710.txt)
    report.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Actual slaughter numbers collected by USDA's Food Safety Inspection
    Service were not available until August 29, but largely confirmed
    Market News estimates from the first post-fire week. The significant
    Saturday production--an increase of about 21,000 head--made up some of
    the actual weekday loss in slaughter, resulting in actual total steer
    and heifer slaughter numbers being only 1,000 head lower than week
    leading up to the fire.
        Despite the loss of the Holcomb plant, the total number of fed
    cattle harvested during the first three post-fire weeks actually
    outpaced that of the three weeks prior to the fire by approximately
    5,000 head. This should not be unexpected as rising boxed beef prices
    and the higher price spread provided an incentive to packers to
    increase production. In the weeks after the fire, Tyson appears to have
    shipped a significant portion of the cattle it would have previously
    processed at the Holcomb plant to its other plants.
    Impact on Price
        In the weeks before Labor Day, retailers typically have their
    featuring plans and circulars in place targeting anticipated holiday
    beef demand. During this time, they move to purchase sufficient product
    to cover their planned holiday promotions. This process was already
    underway when the fire occurred. Immediately after the fire, beef
    buyers moved aggressively to procure sufficient product to fulfill
    their supply needs as the initial information available to market
    participants indicated the supply of boxed beef may decrease. During
    the first two weeks post-fire, boxed beef prices trended significantly
    higher before slowing as needs were covered and a clearer understanding
    of the plant's closure on the marketplace was gained.
        Of note, a comparison of advertised prices for beef by major
    supermarket chains to consumers for Labor Day 2019 indicates virtually
    no change from similar ad pricing in 2018. As Labor Day passed, beef
    demand slowed, and the impacts of the beef supply shock dissipated.
    With additional market information and increased slaughter, the Choice
    boxed beef cutout value declined steadily. The boxed beef cutout value
    returned to pre-fire levels toward the end of September but remained
    above 2016-2018 levels.
        The weekly average Choice boxed beef cutout value for the week of
    the plant fire stood at $216.04/cwt., one percent above the $213.09/
    cwt. average for the last week of July. During the first post-fire
    week, the weekly average Choice cutout value rose to $230.43/cwt. a 6.7
    percent increase from the previous week. The Choice cutout continued to
    rise into the second post-fire week, to $239.87/cwt. an 11 percent
    total increase from the week of the fire. Beginning the third week
    post-fire, the Choice cutout value began to decline, continuing to a
    low of $212.58/cwt. in the first week of October, an 11 percent decline
    from its high during the second week post-fire (Figure 2).\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Weekly average negotiated Choice boxed beef cutout value on a
    carcass basis in dollars/cwt. sourced from the National Weekly Boxed
    Beef Cutout and Boxed Beef Cuts--Negotiated Sales (https://
    www.ams.usda.gov/mnreports/ams_2461.pdf) report.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Cattle futures trading on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) is
    widely followed by cattle market participants as an indicator of future
    prices for cattle. CME limits the amount that the price of a live
    cattle futures contract may change in a day. The August live cattle
    futures contract hit the lower limit of the trading value on the Monday
    following the fire and again on Tuesday. During the week following the
    fire, October contracts posted daily declines culminating in a nine
    percent decline by week's end. Through the remainder of August, October
    contracts were lower than August contracts suggesting that the futures
    market expected prices to be lower in October.\5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ https://www.cmegroup.com/trading/agricultural/livestock/live-
    cattle.html.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The weekly average fed cattle negotiated cash dressed price during
    the week leading up to the fire was $180/cwt. on a dressed weight
    basis, one percent below the $181.81/cwt. average for the final week of
    July. Following the declines in fed cattle futures prices, the price of
    fed cattle declined six percent to $169.81/cwt. during the first post-
    fire week, but gained just under two percent in the second post-fire
    week to $172.70/cwt. Negotiated fed cattle prices declined to a low
    point of $159.06/cwt. for the week ending September 14 (Figure 1).\6\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ The weekly average negotiated price for steers and heifers on a
    dressed basis sourced from the National Weekly Direct Slaughter
    Cattle--Negotiated Purchases (https://www.ams.usda.gov/mnreports/
    ams_2481.pdf) report using an average of the dressed basis and live
    basis prices where the live basis price is converted to a dressed basis
    by dividing by an average steer/heifer dressing percentage of 63%.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        During the week leading up to the fire, 74,000 head of fed cattle
    were traded on a negotiated cash basis.\7\ The first week following the
    fire, only 53,750 head were traded on a negotiated basis, a 27 percent
    decrease from the prior week. Some sales during that period shifted to
    formula trading. In the same week that negotiated sales fell, there was
    a 15,000 head increase in formula trading. There was a marked drop in
    the number and percentage of negotiated cash fed cattle purchases
    immediately after the fire (Figures 4 and 6).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ The percentage of weekly purchase types (negotiated cash,
    formula net, forward contract, and negotiated grid) sourced from the
    National Weekly Direct Slaughter Cattle--Formulated and Forward
    Contract--Domestic (https://www.ams.usda.gov/mnreports/ams_2478.pdf)
    and the National Weekly Direct Slaughter Cattle--Negotiated Purchases
    (https://www.ams.usda.gov/mnreports/ams_2481.pdf) reports.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        For the week leading up to the plant fire, the spread between the
    negotiated dressed fed cattle price and the Choice boxed beef value was
    $36.03/cwt. In the first week post-fire, with declines in fed cattle
    prices and sharp increases in Choice boxed beef values, the spread
    widened 68 percent to $60.62/cwt. The spread continued to widen in the
    second week after the fire, increasing another 11 percent to reach a
    high of $67.17/cwt. (Figure 3), which at the time, was the largest
    spread between the price of fed cattle and the price of boxed beef
    since the inception of Mandatory Price Reporting in 2001. After the
    third week post-fire, the spread narrowed to $41.77/cwt., a 38 percent
    decrease from its post-fire high.
    Summary of Market Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic
        COVID-19 in the United States has significantly disrupted the
    markets and processing systems responsible for the production and sale
    of U.S. beef. By the last week of April, disruptions in beef production
    peaked when nearly 40 percent of the nation's beef processing capacity
    was idled due to COVID-19 illnesses among packing plant employees.
    During this COVID-19 pandemic, the largest difference--or spread--
    between the Choice boxed beef cutout value and dressed fed cattle
    prices since the inception of Mandatory Price Reporting in 2001 was
    recorded at just over $279/cwt.
        This report summarizes market conditions before and during the
    pandemic and its impacts on fed cattle prices and boxed beef values,
    utilizing data covering the period January 1 through June 6, 2020. Key
    observations from this analysis include:

      1.  The market reactions to the pandemic during the month of March
                were characterized by sudden changes in beef demand.
                Consumers increased purchases of fresh beef at grocery
                stores, and food service demand declined as restaurants
                ceased on-site dining.

      2.  Boxed beef cutout values increased and fed cattle prices were
                volatile in March as packers operated near full capacity.
                From the middle of March to early April, the spread between
                boxed beef values and fed cattle prices increased from $34/
                cwt. to $66/cwt. The spread averaged just under $21/cwt.
                during 2016-2018.

      3.  During April and May, there were significant beef supply
                disruptions as large numbers of plant workers contracted
                COVID-19. Plant closures and slowdowns negatively impacted
                beef production and packer demand for fed cattle. This
                reduced demand for cattle may have contributed to lower fed
                cattle prices.

      4.  An additional surge in consumer retail demand occurred in April
                when consumers appeared to react to the possibility of beef
                shortages in grocery stores. The supply disruptions and
                additional surge in demand may have contributed to a sharp
                increase in beef values. At the same time, packers
                purchased fewer cattle as plant closures and slowdowns
                increased. From early April until the second week of May,
                the spread grew from $66/cwt. to over $279/cwt., a 323
                percent increase.

      5.  In May, restaurants and other sections of the economy gradually
                reopened and beef demand began to move back towards a more
                normal mix between food service and retail grocery demand.
                May also saw an easing in plant closures and slowdowns.
                Boxed beef cutout values peaked in the second week of May
                at $459/cwt. but declined to $298/cwt. by the first week of
                June. Fed cattle prices rose from a 2020 low of $154/cwt.
                in late April to $179/cwt. during the first week of June.
                The spread narrowed from $279/cwt. in the middle of May to
                $119/cwt. by the beginning of June. It is too early to
                determine if spread will continue to narrow.
    General Beef Industry Market Conditions Pre-Pandemic
        USDA Market News collects industry data from a number of data
    sources on boxed beef cutout values, fed cattle prices, and calculates
    the spread between boxed beef cutout values and fed cattle prices. AMS
    also collects data on the percentage of fed cattle purchase types and
    beef production. These data are shown in Figures 1 through 6.
        The Tyson Fresh Meats (Tyson) beef packing plant in Holcomb, Kansas
    resumed processing live cattle in early December 2019 likely
    alleviating concerns about tight slaughter capacity and allowing for a
    return to seasonal patterns for cattle prices and boxed beef values in
    early 2020 (Figures 1 and 2). Live and futures cattle prices remained
    stable in January before tracking lower into February and mid-March
    (Figure 1). Beef production outpaced 2019 levels (Figure 5) and boxed
    beef values moved slightly lower from February into March (Figure 2).
    The spread between Choice boxed beef cutout values and fed cattle
    prices was relatively stable and averaged $17.44/cwt. from January
    until the middle of March (Figure 3).
    Market Reactions
        The World Health Organization declared a COVID-19 pandemic on March
    11, 2020, and a state of emergency was declared in the entirety of the
    U.S. on March 13. Restrictions on travel and social gatherings ensued.
    Beef production, prices, and the spread were likely impacted by sudden
    changes in beef demand patterns during the rest of March as consumers
    increased retail beef demand by apparently stockpiling retail beef,
    while food service demand declined dramatically as restaurants shifted
    to take-out and delivery only.
        Supply disruptions followed in April and May as large numbers of
    plant workers became ill from COVID-19 and plants experienced closures
    and production declines. News of the supply disruptions may have
    spurred an additional surge in retail beef demand as consumers may have
    become concerned about beef shortages and again stockpiled beef.
    Currently, fewer plant closures and less severe slowdowns appear to be
    easing the supply disruptions. The gradual reopening of restaurants
    across the U.S. to in-person dining is currently prompting a shift back
    to food service demand from retail demand.
    Impact on Production, Prices, and Spreads--Changes in Beef Demand
            (March)
        The sudden changes in beef demand began in the middle of March as
    public concerns about the pandemic increased and consumers appear to
    have begun stocking up on retail beef as public health orders closed
    restaurants to in-person dining. USDA's Economic Research Service (ERS)
    acquires proprietary retail scanner data from Information Resources,
    Inc. (IRI), a market research firm. The IRI scanner data show that
    consumers increased their weekly retail purchases of beef by
    approximately 66 and 77 percent for the weeks ending March 15 and March
    22, respectively, compared to the same weeks in 2019.
        Packers met this increased retail demand by increasing processing
    volumes (Figure 5), including the addition of Saturday shifts. Actual
    slaughter numbers collected by USDA's Food Safety and Inspection
    Service and reported by AMS Market News show that actual slaughter
    during the third week of March was over 660,000 head of cattle, and in
    the last week of March, actual slaughter exceeded 684,000 head, 3.8
    percent and 10.7 percent higher than the same weeks in 2019,
    respectively. Despite the production increase, shortages of retail beef
    for sale in grocery stores existed as packers reportedly were not able
    to shift beef production and packaging quickly from food service to
    retail grocery products.
        The weekly average Choice boxed beef cutout value rose from $207/
    cwt. in the middle of March to over $255/cwt. at the beginning of
    April, an increase of approximately 23 percent (Figure 2). Packers
    increased their beef production by increasing purchases of fed cattle,
    possibly contributing to an increase in fed cattle prices. From mid-
    March to early April, dressed fed cattle prices increased from $173/
    cwt. to $189/cwt., an increase of just over nine percent (Figure 1).
    Futures prices of fed cattle, however, declined over the same time
    period. One possible reason for the decline is that the length and
    severity of the pandemic and the markets' responses to its effects are
    uncertain, which increases the risk of buying futures contracts. The
    nearby weekly average futures price was over $109/cwt. for the week
    ending March 6. By the first week of April, the futures price declined
    to $95.90/cwt.
        Rising boxed beef cutout values and fluctuating fed cattle prices
    increased the spread during March. From mid-March to the beginning of
    April, the spread increased by approximately 94 percent, from
    approximately $34/cwt. to $66/cwt. The spread averaged just under $21/
    cwt. during 2016-2018 (Figure 3). Beef packers were able to respond to
    higher spreads by running plants at higher capacities in March. Also,
    in March, packing plant employees had not yet been severely impacted by
    COVID-19, a situation that changed in April.
    Impact on Production, Prices, and Spreads--Supply Disruptions (April-
            May)
        Beginning in late March and early April, a large number of plant
    workers contracted COVID-19. By mid-April, plant closures and slowdowns
    from COVID-19 illnesses led to dramatic declines in beef production and
    fed cattle demand. Plant closures and slowdowns increased through the
    month and peaked at the end of April. The President invoked the Defense
    Production Act on April 28 and ordered meat processors to remain open.
    Plant closures and slowdowns eased throughout May.
        During the last full week of March, beef production was 68 million
    pounds higher than the same week in 2019, but was 180 million pounds
    lower than the same week in 2019 by the last week of April, a year-
    over-year decrease of 34 percent (Figure 5).\8\ Actual slaughter data
    collected by USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service and reported by
    AMS Market News show that weekly slaughter decreased from over 684,000
    head at the end of March to under 439,000 at the end of April, a
    decrease of 36 percent.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ Sourced from the Weekly Actual Slaughter Under Federal
    Inspection (https://www.ams.usda.gov/mnreports/sj_ls711.txt) report.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        An additional surge in retail beef demand occurred in April when
    consumers appeared to react to the possibility of beef shortages in
    grocery stores. IRI scanner data show that consumers increased their
    retail purchases of beef from the corresponding weeks during 2019 by
    approximately 29 percent and 44 percent for the weeks ending April 19
    and April 26, respectively. Grocery stores responded to shortages by
    rationing sales and cutting promotions.
        The beef supply disruption and the additional beef demand surge
    contributed to further increases in boxed beef values. The weekly
    average Choice boxed beef cutout value rose from approximately $255/
    cwt. at the beginning of April to over $459/cwt. by the second week of
    May, an increase of approximately 80 percent (Figure 2).
        After the plant closures and slowdowns, packers purchased fewer fed
    cattle, which likely contributed to decreased fed cattle prices. From
    the beginning of April until the beginning of May, dressed fed cattle
    prices decreased from $189/cwt. to $154/cwt., a decrease of over 18
    percent (Figure 1) and a low price so far for 2020. As packer purchases
    of fed cattle declined, cattle began backing up in feedlots leading to
    higher carcass weights. The carcass weights of all grades of steers and
    heifers reported by AMS Market News showed that carcass weights
    averaged 914 pounds in the first week of April, peaked at 952 pounds in
    the third week of April, and declined to just above 900 pounds in late
    April into May. This is well above 2019 levels, which averaged 878
    pounds in April.
        The May USDA Cattle on Feed report shows that April marketings of
    fed cattle to packers were down 24.3 percent from 2019. This follows a
    13.1 percent increase in March from 2019 as reported in the March USDA
    Cattle on Feed report. Feedlot placements by producers and feeders were
    22 percent lower in April than in 2019.
        The apparent changes in supply and demand in April and May occurred
    as the spread reached record highs. From the beginning of April until
    the third week of May, the spread rose from approximately $66/cwt. to
    just over $279/cwt., an increase of approximately 323 percent (Figure
    3) and the largest spread between the price of fed cattle and the price
    of boxed beef since the inception of Mandatory Price Reporting in 2001.
    Impact on Production, Prices, and Spreads--Gradual Reopening of the
            Economy
        By the end of May, all 50 states were in some phase of reopening
    their economies, including restaurants to in-person dining. The gradual
    reopening of the economy, restaurants in particular, shows a trend for
    beef demand moving back towards a more normal mix between food service
    and retail grocery demand. The gradual reopening of the economy also
    occurred during a period of increased operating capacity due to
    reductions in plant closures and slowdowns. The plant disruptions
    peaked at the end of April and decreased throughout May.
        In the second full week of May, boxed beef cutout values peaked at
    approximately $459/cwt. but declined to $298/cwt. by the first week of
    June (Figure 2). Dressed fed cattle prices increased from approximately
    $154/cwt., during the last of week of April to $179/cwt. in the first
    week of June, an increase of approximately 16 percent (Figure 1). The
    increase in fed cattle prices occurred at the same time as the recovery
    in the nearby cattle futures from $86.64/cwt. during the last week of
    April to $100.35/cwt. during the last week of May before declining
    again to $95.74 the first week of June.
        As beef values declined and fed cattle prices increased, the spread
    has narrowed. During the Afirst week of June, the spread narrowed to
    approximately $119/cwt., down from approximately $279/cwt. during the
    first and second weeks of May (Figure 3). This is a decrease of
    approximately 57 percent, but the spread is still high by historical
    standards. It is too early to determine if this trend will continue as
    uncertainty persists over the recovery of the supply situation at beef
    plants and the recovery of food service demand amid continued COVID-19
    concerns and any continued effects.
    Continued Vigilance
        Findings thus far do not preclude the possibility that individual
    entities or groups of entities violated the Packers and Stockyards Act
    during the aftermath of the Tyson Holcomb fire and the COVID-19
    pandemic. The investigation into potential violations under the Packers
    and Stockyards Act is continuing.
        USDA does not solely own investigatory authority over
    anticompetitive practices in the meat packing industry and has been
    engaged in discussions with the Department of Justice (DOJ) regarding
    allegations of anticompetitive practices in the meat packing industry.
    Should USDA find a violation of the Packers and Stockyards Act, it is
    authorized to report the violation to DOJ for prosecution.
    Figure 1. Average Weekly Negotiated Price--All Cattle Dressed Basis

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              Weekly average negotiated cash basis prices for all cattle on
            a dressed basis in dollars per cwt. comparing 2020 to 2019 and
            to the 2016-2018 average.
              Source: USDA Agricultural Marketing Service.
    Figure 2. Weekly Choice Beef Cutout

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
              Weekly average negotiated Choice boxed beef cutout value on a
            carcass basis in dollars per cwt. comparing 2020 to 2019 and to
            the 2016-2018 average.
              Source: USDA Agricultural Marketing Service.
    Figure 3. Negotiated Choice Cutout/Cattle Price Spread

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
              The dollar difference between the weekly average negotiated
            dressed basis Choice boxed beef cutout value and the weekly
            average negotiated dressed basis price for live fed cattle.
              Source: USDA Agricultural Marketing Service.
    Figure 4. Fed Cattle--% Weekly Negotiated Cash Sales

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
              Weekly average percentage of negotiated fed cattle cash sales
            of total fed cattle sales comparing 2020 to 2019 and to the
            2016-2018 average and highlighting the immediate post-plant
            closure period.
              Source: USDA Agricultural Marketing Service.
    Figure 5. Weekly Est. Federally Inspected Beef Production

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
              Source: USDA Agricultural Marketing Service.
    Figure 6. Weekly Slaughter Cattle Purchase Type Breakdown

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
              Weekly average percentage by purchase type (negotiated cash,
            formula net, forward contract, and negotiated grid).
              Source: USDA Agricultural Marketing Service.
    Other Considerations
        The preceding summary of market conditions is only one component of
    a larger discussion within the cattle, beef, and related industries
    that share a common narrative about a highly concentrated meatpacking
    sector. At the core of many of these discussions is the desire by many
    market participants for improved price discovery, reinvigorated
    competition, and a more transparent relationship between the prices for
    live cattle and the resulting products.
    Price Reporting and Transparency
        USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) strives to alleviate
    conjecture in the marketplace through its various market reporting
    programs, including Livestock Mandatory Reporting (LMR). LMR, in
    operation for nearly two decades, disseminates timely market
    information to the public at no cost to its users. As LMR has become a
    key source of information for many contracts and marketing agreements,
    it is incumbent upon AMS to further leverage that authority to assist
    in the marketing of America's cattle and beef--especially in ensuring
    an even playing field for all participants regardless of size or
    resource.
        One of the underlying concerns about price discovery is the
    declining number of participants in the negotiated cash market. As the
    number of participants has diminished, confidentiality guidelines have
    resulted in periods when prices cannot be reported in certain regions
    (e.g., Colorado), leading to concerns about price transparency. Last
    year, AMS commissioned economists at Kansas State and Iowa State
    Universities to evaluate the current 5-Area Cattle Reporting regions.
    Their findings pinpointed several ways to reduce the incidence of non-
    reporting in LMR due to an inability to meet confidentiality guidelines
    (See Appendix). A reduction in non-reporting will provide improved
    price discovery. Most notably, a combination or reshuffling of
    reporting regions--a change that could be made without legislative
    action--could ultimately expand the market data released to the public.
    However, there has not been industry consensus on such a recommendation
    to date.
        On a daily and weekly basis, AMS disseminates estimated and actual
    slaughter information. through the Estimated Daily Livestock Slaughter,
    and the Actual Weekly Livestock Slaughter, under Federal Inspection
    reports [i]--giving the industry valued information on
    supply and volume. With a majority of packers covered by AMS through
    LMR, the accuracy of the estimated data report is high, usually under a
    0.5% differential. The Actual Slaughter Under Federal Inspection report
    is released two weeks after the estimated totals allowing time for FSIS
    data collection and consolidation. Given the long history of the
    accuracy of the daily slaughter estimates, USDA is exploring the idea
    of no longer referring to the daily report as an ``estimate'' to
    encourage the market's immediate use of the information. The daily
    report would still be followed up with the confirmatory report using
    FSIS data and would continue to include the highly sought-after
    information in the current report regarding actual weights for cattle,
    steers, and heifers.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \[i]\ https://www.ams.usda.gov/mnreports/sj_ls710.txt.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        AMS has also explored a 14 day slaughter scheduled delivery
    submission requirement through LMR, a precedent currently in place for
    daily LMR swine reporting. An LMR cattle submission form change would
    be required, to allow the capture of the slaughter schedule. Under this
    scenario, beef packers could report daily the number of cattle
    scheduled to be delivered for slaughter each day for the next 14
    calendar days. A 14 day cattle slaughter schedule exhibits two
    informative advantages over the current slaughter reports: (1) the data
    is available several hours earlier each day, and (2) scheduled delivery
    figures are provided for well beyond just the current slaughter day.
        In light of steadily decreasing percentages of negotiated sales and
    continued market volatility, USDA is also aware of a variety of
    proposals by external stakeholders that would require packers to meet a
    minimum threshold of purchases via negotiated cash trade. Likewise,
    USDA is aware of the variety of concerns with these proposals and
    potential unintended consequences throughout the industry, especially
    if regional considerations are not adequately considered.
        Such regional disparities might be addressed in part by tying the
    minimum purchase thresholds to regional reporting abilities. Under this
    approach, if an LMR region began to fail to meet confidentiality
    guidelines due to packers not procuring cattle on a negotiated cash
    basis, with the proper legislative authority, AMS could track and
    inform packers of the requirement to make an additional percentage of
    such purchases in the following week to allow for reporting. This would
    not place further reporting burden on packers as AMS Market News
    already receives data from beef packers on both a company and plant
    basis, broken down by purchase type, including negotiated cash sales.
    Computer programming could be implemented to more readily track
    negotiated cash sales as a percentage of company or plant purchases. If
    Congress did provide this additional authority, careful consideration
    must be given to the time period in which the purchase requirement
    would apply.
        In an effort to promote price transparency, private and industry
    groups have long worked to develop an online platform to encourage the
    negotiated marketing of fed cattle. However, the platform has struggled
    to attain significant packer participation. Exercise of the new
    authorities contemplated above could support the effort by driving
    increased participation.
        Beyond the scope of LMR, the concept of creating and compensating a
    pool of negotiated cash market traders has been explored by some in
    academia and industry. With further development and discussion, the
    idea may prove an innovative and flexible approach to solving the
    public good problem of a lack of reliable price discovery.
    Risk Management Solutions
        Small- and medium-sized producers could better position themselves
    to more effectively negotiate sales with packers and compete with large
    producers if they had better access to risk management training. For
    example, cattle feeders that hedged (sold a futures contract) when they
    placed cattle on feed prior to the pandemic were able to mitigate the
    steep decline in live cattle prices after the pandemic by closing their
    hedge (buying a futures contract at a lower price) at a profit. Small-
    and medium-sized producers could also benefit from products tailored
    specifically for operations of their size. USDA, the Commodity Futures
    Trading Commission (CFTC), the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME), and
    relevant producer groups could partner to offer outreach and education
    opportunities and could also explore the alteration of existing futures
    contracts and the development of new contracts or derivatives
    specifically designed to level the playing field between large
    producers--who have greater access to information and capital--and
    small- and medium-sized producers. A straightforward example is
    reducing the number of pounds per CME feeder and live cattle contract,
    currently at 50,000 and 40,000 respectively, to a lower number of
    pounds to give small- and medium-sized producers additional flexibility
    in managing their risk through hedging strategies. New products like a
    boxed beef contract could also be considered that place commercial
    participants' interests in a more balanced position with those of
    speculators and managed money.
        Additionally, USDA's Risk Management Agency (RMA) currently offers
    plans to protect against gross margin losses for fed cattle (Livestock
    Gross Margin) and price declines for feeder and fed cattle (Livestock
    Risk Protection). The Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Board of
    Directors (Board) recently approved changes for both of these products
    to make them more affordable and accessible to producers. Improved risk
    management products could allow small- and medium-sized producers to
    compete more effectively with large producers and weather market
    disruptions caused by events such as COVD-19 that have a
    disproportionate impact on small- and medium-sized producers.
    Small Processor and Cooperative Opportunities
        USDA further recognizes there are many discussions about reducing
    the burden for smaller meat processors, asserting that the high cost of
    compliance with Federal requirements are barriers to entry and/or
    survival. USDA's utmost goal through the Food Safety and Inspection
    Service's work is to protect food safety, and as a result, the agency
    has dedicated significant resources to outreach, education and
    technical assistance for these small businesses. Additionally, pursuant
    the 2018 Farm Bill, the Food Safety and Inspection Service is working
    with a third-party to review and improve upon the effectiveness of the
    agency's guidance and outreach to small and very small meat processors.
        The current pandemic has also created a resurgence in demand for
    services provided by these small and very small processors, and for
    consumers who are interested in buying their meat more directly from
    the farm and ranch where it was raised. We understand the addition of
    direct-to-consumer options for beef producers, small processors,
    retailers, and others must be done in a way that does not compromise
    federal food safety standards or create disruption with our trading
    partners. USDA is committed to working with stakeholders to balance
    food safety with these growing consumer preferences and growing e-
    commerce platforms.
        While USDA's Rural Development (RD) programs does not offer a loan
    or grant program specific to meat processors, a number of loan
    guarantee and grant programs administered by RD can provide assistance
    to small and very small meat processors looking to develop or expand
    their business. RD loan guarantees can be used by individuals,
    businesses, or cooperatives for: acquisition, conversion, enlargement,
    repair, modernization, development, purchase of equipment, leasehold
    improvements, machinery, supplies, or inventory.
        The cooperative model (co-op) has long been an option for producer
    collaboration to enhance marketing power. Small scale application of
    the co-op model has also proven successful in providing small producers
    access to processing services in limited instances. However, large
    scale co-op meat processing facilities have historically struggled to
    reach sustainable levels of profitability. USDA's Rural Cooperative
    Development Grant funds centers for co-op development across the
    country that can offer technical assistance in organizing and forming a
    co-op. USDA also maintains a library of educational resources on a wide
    range of co-op operation topics.
    P&S Act Updates and Enforcement
        In January, USDA issued a proposed rule to establish criteria the
    Secretary would consider when determining whether an undue or
    unreasonable preference or advantage has occurred in violation of the
    Packers and Stockyards Act (P&S Act). The proposed rule acknowledged
    current court precedent regarding the consideration of harm to
    competition when determining if a preference or advantage violates the
    Act, but also provided the Secretary four criteria for careful
    consideration and the option to consider additional factors as
    warranted. USDA is currently reviewing the 2,351 comments received in
    response to the proposal as it works to finalize the rule.
        Beyond rulemaking, small- and medium-sized producers could also
    benefit from updates to the P&S Act designed to offset the impacts of
    operating in a concentrated industry, where the market power resides
    with large meatpackers. Smaller producers often find themselves to be
    price takers in the market for fed cattle and lack the volume of larger
    producers to negotiate unique and advantageous marketing agreements
    with large meatpackers.
        In efforts to address this imbalance, there has been discussion of
    creating a beef contract library similar to the swine contract library
    USDA currently maintains pursuant to Section 222 of the P&S Act.
    Amending the P&S Act to develop a similar library for beef transactions
    could help increase price discovery in cattle markets and enhance
    access to market information for all market participants, regardless of
    size.
        Interested stakeholders and legislators may also consider targeted
    amendments to the P&S Act that would provide USDA with investigative
    and enforcement tools on par with those of our Federal partners. For
    example, the ability to issue Civil Investigative Demands (``CIDs'')
    with respect to unfair or deceptive acts or practices would bring
    USDA's authorities in line with those of the Federal Trade Commission
    (FTC) and DOJ. While subpoenas are useful, the additional authority to
    require written reports and answers to questions could be very
    beneficial in certain investigations. Amendments to elevate certain
    packer conduct to criminal violations and provide the Secretary with
    the tools necessary to carry out appropriate criminal investigations
    may also be ripe for consideration.
    Conclusion
        It is important that any proposals aimed at addressing these
    complex issues and others associated with the market disruptions caused
    by the Holcomb fire and COVID-19 receive careful consideration and
    thorough vetting given their potential to affect everyone whose
    livelihood depends on the sale of cattle, beef, or related products.
    USDA stands ready to assist stakeholders and policymakers as they
    continue to explore options to improve price discovery, level the
    playing field between producers and large meatpackers in negotiating
    prices and procurement methods, and to foster a more transparent
    relationship between the prices for live cattle and the resulting
    products.
    Appendix: Price Discovery through Livestock Mandatory Reporting
        Price discovery in the cattle markets has been a major concern for
    decades and a driving force behind the enactment of The Livestock
    Mandatory Reporting Act of 1999. Livestock Mandatory Reporting (LMR)
    applies to slaughter cattle, swine, sheep, boxed beef, lamb meat, and
    wholesale pork. LMR was implemented in 2001, reauthorized in 2006,
    2010, and 2015. Currently, LMR is set to expire September 30, 2020.
    Who and what is subject to Livestock Mandatory Reporting?
        For cattle reporting, federally inspected packing plants that
    annually slaughter or process an average of 125,000 cattle are required
    to report information. Packers must report information of all
    transactions involving the purchases of slaughter cattle. Data on the
    prices and quantities of livestock and livestock products are reported
    on a daily and weekly basis. The cattle transaction types include:

       Negotiated purchase (spot market purchase): A price is
            determined through buyer and seller interaction, and the cattle
            are scheduled for delivery within 30 days of the agreement.

       Forward Contract purchase: An agreed upon price is scheduled
            ahead of slaughter, and a base price is tied to price quotes in
            the futures market.

       Negotiated Grid purchase: A base price is determined through
            buyer and seller interaction within 14 days of delivery, but
            the final net price includes premiums and discounts.

       Formula purchase: An advanced agreement of cattle delivery
            that does not utilize the purchase methods above.

       Packer-owned: Owned by the packer for more than 14 days.

        Cattle data are aggregated to the national level as well as several
    regions: Texas-Oklahoma-New Mexico, Kansas, Nebraska, Colorado, Iowa-
    Minnesota, and 5-Area (composed of the five regions included in this
    list).
    When is data excluded from reporting?
        Data may not be published due to confidentiality issues. To publish
    an LMR report, the data must meet the 3/70/20 confidentiality
    guideline, which requires the following:

       At least three reporting entities need to provide data at
            least 50 percent of the time over the most recent 60-day time
            period.

       No single reporting entity may provide more than 70 percent
            of the data for a report over the most recent 60-day time
            period.

       No single reporting entity may be the sole reporting entity
            for an individual report more than 20 percent of the time over
            most recent 60-day time period.

        Additionally, for daily purchases of slaughter steers and heifers,
    transaction lots with 10 head or less are excluded.
    What is Livestock Mandatory Reporting's Impact on Price Discovery?
        Several studies have taken place since the inception of LMR,
    evaluating its impact on livestock markets. A 2015 study by Matthews
    and colleagues analyzed the discovery of livestock market prices. The
    study concluded that LMR increased the flow of market information,
    leading to better informed markets. Boyer and Brorsen (2013) studied
    the impact of LMR on beef markets and concluded that if price
    uncertainty is reduced for packers, then cattle feeders benefit from
    increased competition by the packers. An earlier work of Azzam (2003)
    reported that LMR could assist with increasing competitiveness in
    livestock marketings. Last, the 2018 Report to Congress on Livestock
    Mandatory Reporting found that during the October 2013 Government
    Shutdown, livestock markets were deeply affected by the lack of LMR.
    For example, the CME Group suspended its feeder cattle index, and
    private sector economic analysis was stifled due to the lack of LMR
    during the shutdown (Agricultural Marketing Service, 2018).

                               Appendix References

        Azzam, A. 2003. ``Market Transparency and Market Structure: The
     Livestock Mandatory Reporting Act of 1999.'' American Journal of
     Agricultural Economics 85(2): 387-395.
        Agricultural Marketing Service, United States Department of
     Agriculture. 2018. Report to Congress: Livestock Mandatory Reporting.
        Boyer, C.N. and B.W. Brorsen. 2013. ``Changes in Beef Packers'
     Market Power after the Livestock Mandatory Price Reporting Act: An
     Agent-based Auction.'' American Journal of Agricultural Economics 95:
     859-876
        Mathews, Kenneth H., Jr., W. Brorsen, W.F. Hahn, C. Arnade, and E.
     Dohlman. September 2015. Mandatory Price Reporting, Market Efficiency,
     and Price Discovery in Livestock Markets. LDPM-25401, U.S. Department
     of Agriculture, Economic Research Service

                                     ______

     Submitted Report by Hon. Al Lawson, Jr., a Representative in Congress
                                  from Florida
    Food Insecurity: Better Information Could Help Eligible College
            Students Access Federal Food Assistance Benefits
    December 2018
    GAO-19-95
    GAO Highlights
        Highlights of GAO-19-95,[1] a report to Congressional
    requesters.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \[1]\ https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-95.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Why GAO Did This Study
        Increasing evidence indicates that some college students are
    experiencing food insecurity, which can negatively impact their
    academic success. However, college students are only eligible for SNAP
    in certain cases. Given the substantial Federal investment in higher
    education and the risk posed if students do not complete their degrees,
    GAO was asked to review food insecurity among college students.
        This report examines (1) what is known about the extent of food
    insecurity among college students and their use of SNAP; (2) how
    selected colleges are addressing student food insecurity; and (3) the
    extent to which Federal programs assist students experiencing food
    insecurity. GAO reviewed relevant Federal laws and agency documents and
    studies on student food insecurity; analyzed 2016 Federal student data
    (the most recent available), and visited four states, selected based on
    actions taken to address student food insecurity, geographic diversity,
    and other factors. GAO interviewed researchers; officials from
    Education, FNS national and regional offices; and officials at 14
    colleges, including students at eight of these colleges. GAO also
    emailed all state SNAP agencies about their efforts related to
    students.
    What GAO Recommends
        GAO recommends that FNS (1) improve student eligibility information
    on its website and (2) share information on state SNAP agencies'
    approaches to help eligible students. FNS partially concurred, and
    plans to review its information. GAO continues to believe additional
    action is warranted, as discussed in the report.
        View GAO-19-95.[2] For more information, contact Kathryn
    Larin at (202) 512-7215 or larink@gao.gov.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \[2]\ https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-95.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    What GAO Found
        There is limited information about the national prevalence of food
    insecurity among college students. GAO reviewed 31 studies that
    identified a wide range of food insecurity rates among the students
    studied, but the studies did not provide national estimates. College
    students at risk of food insecurity may be eligible for benefits from
    the Food and Nutrition Service's (FNS) Supplemental Nutrition
    Assistance Program (SNAP). However, GAO's analysis of Department of
    Education (Education) data shows that almost two million at-risk
    students who were potentially eligible for SNAP did not report
    receiving benefits in 2016. According to GAO's analysis, having a low
    income is the most common risk factor for food insecurity among college
    students. Among low-income students, most have one additional risk
    factor associated with food insecurity, such as being a first-
    generation student or a single parent.
        The 14 selected colleges that GAO contacted were addressing student
    food insecurity in a number of ways. For example, all 14 were providing
    free food to students through on-campus food pantries, and most were
    offering emergency funds to help students pay for living expenses that
    might otherwise force them to choose between buying food or staying in
    school. Many of these colleges had centralized student services to
    better address their students' basic needs and provide other support,
    such as screening students for potential eligibility and helping them
    apply for Federal benefit programs like SNAP.
    Selected Colleges' Initiatives to Address Student Food Insecurity

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              Source: Information from colleges GAO contacted. D GAO-19-95

        Federal student aid generally does not cover all college costs for
    low-income students, and college students may have limited access to
    Federal food assistance programs such as SNAP because of program
    eligibility restrictions. Some state SNAP agencies reported that they
    are taking steps to help students access SNAP by conducting outreach to
    colleges and developing guidance. Nevertheless, at 9 of the 14 colleges
    GAO contacted, some college officials and students said that they were
    unfamiliar with or did not fully understand SNAP's student eligibility
    rules. Some college officials said that they would like information
    from FNS to better explain SNAP student rules, but FNS has not made
    such information easily accessible on its website. Further, college
    officials and state SNAP agencies noted that FNS does not share
    examples of actions taken by other states to help eligible students
    access SNAP. Clarification of SNAP student eligibility rules and
    enhanced information sharing about state efforts could help ensure that
    potentially eligible college students can access Federal food
    assistance programs.
    Contents
    Letter

        Background
        Information about the Prevalence of Food Insecurity among College
    Students Nationally is Limited and Many Potentially Eligible, At-Risk
    Students Do Not Receive SNAP
        Selected Colleges Are Using a Range of Approaches to Address
    Student Food Insecurity
        While SNAP Can Supplement Other Federal Aid for Some Low-Income
    Students, FNS Does Not Share Key Information to Help States Better
    Leverage SNAP to Assist Students
        Conclusions
        Recommendations for Executive Action
        Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

    Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
    Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

    Tables

        Table 1: Prevalence of Risk Factors Associated with Food Insecurity
    among Low-Income U.S. College Undergraduate Students, by College Type
    in 2016
        Table 2: Prevalence of Risk Factors Associated with Food Insecurity
    among Low-Income U.S. College Undergraduate Students in 2016
        Table 3: Studies Included in GAO's Review That Estimate College
    Student Food Insecurity
        Table 4: Risk Factors Identified by GAO Associated with Food
    Insecurity Among College Students
        Table 5. Selected Risk Factors and Corresponding Variables in the
    2016 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study Data Set
        Table 6: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
    Eligibility Exemptions for College Students and Corresponding Variables
    in the 2016 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study Data Set
        Table 7: List of 2 and 4 year Selected Colleges that GAO Contacted,
    by State

    Figures

        Figure 1: Percentages and Characteristics of Traditional and
    Nontraditional College Students in 2016
        Figure 2: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
    Participation among Low-Income College Students At-Risk of Food
    Insecurity in 2016
        Figure 3: Initiatives by Selected Colleges to Address Student Food
    Insecurity
        Figure 4: Pictures of Food Pantries from GAO Site Visits to
    Selected Colleges

                                  Abbreviations

      Education   U.S. Department of Education
            E&T   Employment and Training
          FAFSA   Free Application for Federal Student Aid
            FNS   Food and Nutrition Service
          NPSAS   National Postsecondary Student Aid Study
           SNAP   Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
           USDA   U.S. Department of Agriculture

              This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to
            copyright protection in the United States. The published
            product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety
            without further permission from GAO. However, because this work
            may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission
            from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to
            reproduce this material separately.

    December 21, 2018

      The Honorable Debbie Stabenow,
      Ranking Member,
      Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry,
      United States Senate;

      The Honorable Patty Murray,
      Ranking Member,
      Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions,
      United States Senate;

      The Honorable Edward J. Markey,
      United States Senate;

      The Honorable Elizabeth Warren,
      United States Senate.

        In Fiscal Year 2017, the Federal Government spent over $122 billion
    in grants, loans, and work-study funds through Federal student aid
    programs to help make college accessible to students.\1\ This
    substantial Federal investment in higher education is at risk if
    college students drop out because they cannot afford basic necessities
    like food. The Federal Government also spent $98 billion in Fiscal Year
    2017 on nutrition assistance programs, including $68 billion on the
    Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the nation's largest
    nutrition assistance program, to combat food insecurity. College
    students enrolled at least half time, however, are generally not
    eligible for SNAP benefits unless they fall into certain categories
    designed to more narrowly target students in need of assistance.
    According to some studies, college students who experience food
    insecurity, which the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) defines as
    the condition of limited or uncertain access to adequate food, may also
    experience decreased academic performance, symptoms of depression and
    anxiety, and other negative mental health indicators.\2\ In light of
    the potential obstacles to college students' academic success posed by
    lack of access to adequate food, you asked us to review the issue of
    food insecurity among college students.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ For this report, we define Federal student aid programs as
    financial aid programs authorized under Title IV of the Higher
    Education Act of 1965, as amended, Pub. L. No. 89-329, Title IV, 79
    Stat. 1219 (codified at 20 U.S.C.  1001 et seq.). These include the
    William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan, the Federal Pell Grant, and the
    Federal Work-Study programs.
        \2\ See Suzanna M. Martinez, Edward A. Frongillo, Cindy Leung, and
    Lorrene Ritchie, ``No Food for Thought: Food Insecurity is Related to
    Poor Mental Health and Lower Academic Performance among Students in
    California's Public University System,'' Journal of Health Psychology
    (June 25, 2018), accessed at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/
    10.1177/1359105318783028; Maya E. Maroto, Anastasia Snelling, and Henry
    Linck, ``Food Insecurity among Community College Students: Prevalence
    and Association with Grade Point Average,'' Community College Journal
    of Research and Practice, vol. 39, no. 6 (2015); Megan M. Patton-Lopez,
    Daniel F. Lopez-Cevallos, Doris I. Cancel-Tirado, and Leticia Vazquez,
    ``Prevalence and Correlates of Food Insecurity among Students Attending
    a Midsize Rural University in Oregon,'' Journal of Nutrition Education
    and Behavior, vol. 46, no. 3 (2014); Meg Bruening, Stephanie
    Brennhofer, Irene van Woerden, Michael Todd, and Melissa Laska,
    ``Factors Related to the High Rates of Food Insecurity among Diverse,
    Urban College Freshmen,'' Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and
    Dietetics, vol. 116, no. 9 (2016).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        This report examines: (1) what is known about the extent of food
    insecurity among college students and their use of SNAP; (2) how
    selected colleges are addressing student food insecurity; and (3) the
    extent to which Federal programs assist college students experiencing
    food insecurity.
        To determine what is known about the extent of food insecurity
    among college students, we conducted an in-depth review of studies. To
    be included, studies had to: (1) be based on research conducted in and
    published in the United States; (2) be published after 2007; and (3)
    contain original, direct estimates of food insecurity rates among
    college students. We identified 35 studies that met these criteria, but
    subsequently eliminated four of these from our in-depth review due to
    concerns about their methodological limitations. We reviewed and
    summarized the remaining 31 studies.
        We also analyzed National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS)
    data from the 2015-2016 academic year, the most recent year available,
    to estimate the prevalence of risk factors for food insecurity among
    college students. Nationally representative survey data that would
    support direct estimates of the prevalence of food insecurity among
    college students do not currently exist. However, the National Center
    for Education Statistics at the Department of Education (Education)
    regularly collects NPSAS data, which contain nationally representative,
    detailed demographic and financial data about college students.\3\ We
    assessed the reliability of the NPSAS data by reviewing existing
    information about the data and the system that produced them and by
    interviewing agency officials knowledgeable about the data. As a
    result, we determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the
    purposes of this report. We identified risk factors associated with
    food insecurity through a literature review and through interviews with
    academic researchers, college officials, state and Federal officials,
    and relevant policy organizations. We also analyzed NPSAS data to
    estimate SNAP participation among potentially eligible students.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ NPSAS data are based on a nationally representative sample of
    college students. Data are collected from multiple sources, including
    school records and government databases, as well as student interviews.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        To understand how selected colleges address student food
    insecurity, we conducted site visits in California, Kentucky,
    Massachusetts, and Michigan. We selected a geographically diverse group
    of states where colleges or state SNAP agencies were actively
    addressing food insecurity among college students. In selecting these
    states, we reviewed literature and asked researchers we interviewed
    about colleges and states that were actively addressing food insecurity
    on campus. In each state, we met with administrators, faculty, and
    students at selected 2 and 4 year public colleges and with officials
    from the state agencies that administer the SNAP program and other
    relevant organizations. Overall, we contacted 14 colleges--seven 2 year
    and seven 4 year colleges--that were actively addressing food
    insecurity among their students.\4\ We also interviewed researchers and
    staff at policy organizations knowledgeable about SNAP and college
    student food insecurity.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ We visited 12 colleges as a part of our site visits and
    conducted telephone interviews with officials at 2 colleges in other
    states.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        To assess the extent to which Federal programs assist college
    students experiencing food insecurity, we reviewed relevant Federal
    laws, regulations, and agency guidance and program documents. We
    emailed the 51 state SNAP agency directors (all 50 states and the
    District of Columbia) to ask whether their state agency is taking any
    action to address college student food insecurity and received
    responses from 50 of them.\5\ We interviewed state SNAP agency
    directors in our site visit states of California, Kentucky,
    Massachusetts, and Michigan, as well as in Washington because of its
    innovative partnerships with colleges. We also interviewed USDA Food
    and Nutrition Service (FNS) officials at the national office as well as
    at four of the seven FNS regional offices.\6\ We compared FNS's
    communication and information sharing activities against Federal
    internal control standards. Further details on our methodology are
    available in appendix I.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ Michigan's state SNAP agency did not respond to our email.
    However, we interviewed the Michigan state SNAP agency director during
    the course of our review and incorporated the state's actions to
    address student food insecurity into our report, as appropriate.
        \6\ We interviewed the four FNS regional offices that are
    responsible for oversight of our site visit states.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        We conducted this performance audit from July 2017 to December 2018
    in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
    Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
    sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
    findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that
    the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
    conclusions based on our audit objectives.
    Background
        The Federal Government, states, colleges, students and their
    families all play important roles in financing higher education
    costs.\7\ Under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as
    amended, the Federal Government offers students at all types of
    colleges financial assistance to help pay for their education, such as
    through the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan (Federal Direct Loan),
    the Federal Pell Grant (Pell Grant), and the Federal Work-Study
    programs. Some of this aid is targeted toward students based on their
    financial need. For example, Education provided almost $27 billion in
    Pell Grants to low-income students in Fiscal Year 2017. States also
    provide funding to public colleges through state appropriations for
    operating expenses and grant programs that provide financial aid
    directly to students based on financial need, merit, or a combination
    of both. Despite the substantial Federal expenditure in higher
    education, rising college costs have outpaced Federal and state grant
    aid and, over time, have led to an increasing share of the cost being
    borne by students and their families. For example, over the past 30
    years, the average in-state net price for a full-time undergraduate
    student at a public 4 year college--after taking into account all grant
    aid and education tax benefits--has nearly doubled, from about $8,000
    in 1990-1991 to nearly $15,000 in 2017-2018. At public 2 year colleges,
    the net price for full-time students increased over the same time
    period from about $6,800 to $8,000.\8\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ For purposes of this report, ``colleges'' include 2 and 4 year
    degree-granting institutions as well as those that provide technical
    training in certificate programs of shorter duration. Unless otherwise
    noted, ``college students'' refers to undergraduates enrolled in one of
    these institutions.
        \8\ Net price is the cost of college per student after all
    financial aid and education tax benefits are taken into account. This
    figure includes tuition, fees, room, and board (the cost of food). To
    increase transparency about college costs and help students make
    informed decisions about which college they can afford, the Federal
    Government requires all colleges that are authorized to disburse
    Federal financial aid to annually publish on their website a net price
    calculator. These figures are collected and published in Sandy Baum,
    Jennifer Ma, Matea Pender, and Meredith Welch, Trends in Student Aid
    2017 (New York: The College Board, October 2017).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        To plan for the cost of college, students and their families must
    consider the full cost of attendance, which includes not only tuition
    and fees, but also room and board and other miscellaneous expenses.\9\
    The Federal Government requires colleges to estimate and distribute
    information on the full cost of attendance to prospective and enrolled
    students. The amount of need-based Federal aid a student is eligible
    for is based, in part, upon the school's estimated cost of attendance.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ Room costs include an allowance for living expenses for
    students who do not live on campus. Miscellaneous expenses may include
    allowances for books, supplies, transportation, loan fees, and, if
    applicable, dependent care.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Changes in College Student Demographics
        National data show that, over the past several decades, an
    increasing percentage of students from low-income households are
    enrolling in college. According to NPSAS data, the percentage of all
    undergraduates who had a household income at or below 130 percent of
    the Federal poverty line increased from 28 percent in 1996 to 39
    percent in 2016.\10\ In addition, the percentage of college students
    receiving a Pell Grant has nearly doubled over roughly the same time
    period. For example, in 1999-2000, approximately 23 percent of college
    students received a Pell Grant, and in 2016, this figure was about 40
    percent.\11\ Some researchers have suggested that reductions in Federal
    and state funding of higher education relative to the increasing cost
    of college have coupled with these student demographics to increase the
    share of college costs borne by students, which can reduce the amount
    students have to support their basic needs, such as food and
    housing.\12\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ These results are within a +/-1 percentage point margin of
    error. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
    Statistics, 1995-1996 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study
    (NPSAS:96); and 2015-2016 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study
    (NPSAS:16).
        \11\ U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
    Statistics, Trends in Pell Grant Receipt and the Characteristics of
    Pell Grant Recipients: Selected Years, 1999-2000 to 2011-2012, NCES
    2015-601 (Washington, D.C.: September 2015); and 2015-2016 National
    Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:16).
        \12\ See, for example, Amy Ellen Duke-Benfield, Bolstering Non-
    Traditional Student Success: A Comprehensive Student Aid System Using
    Financial Aid, Public Benefits, and Refundable Tax Credits (Washington,
    D.C.: Center for Law and Social Policy, December 2015); Sara Goldrick-
    Rab, Katharine Broton, and Daniel Eisenberg, Hungry to Learn:
    Addressing Food and Housing Insecurity among Undergraduates (Madison:
    Wisconsin HOPE Lab, December 2015); Sara Goldrick-Rab, Jed Richardson,
    and Anthony Hernandez, Hungry and Homeless in College: Results from a
    National Study of Basic Needs Insecurity in Higher Education (Madison:
    Wisconsin HOPE Lab, March 2017).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        A traditional college student is generally considered to be someone
    who is enrolled in college full time immediately after graduating from
    high school, is financially dependent on his or her parents, and either
    does not work during the school year or works part time.\13\ However,
    these students represent a minority of students enrolled in college
    today. According to NPSAS data, about half of all undergraduate
    students enrolled in college in 2016 were considered financially
    independent from their parents. About 22 percent had dependent children
    themselves, and 14 percent were single parents. The average college
    student in 2016 was 26 years old and first enrolled at age 21. Sixty-
    four percent of college students in 2016 worked at least part time
    while enrolled, and \1/4\ worked full time. See figure 1 for the
    percentages of traditional and nontraditional students in 2016 and for
    Education's list of traditional and nontraditional student
    characteristics.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \13\ U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
    Statistics, Findings from the Condition of Education, 2002:
    Nontraditional Undergraduates, NCES 2002-012 (Washington, D.C.: 2002).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Figure 1: Percentages and Characteristics of Traditional and
            Nontraditional College Students in 2016

              Source: GAO analysis of 2016 National Postsecondary Student
            Aid Study data from the U.S. Department of Education. D GAO-19-
            95.
              Note: Categories of traditional and nontraditional students
            are based on the Department of Education's definition. All
            results are within a +/-2 percentage point margin of error.
    Federal Food Assistance Programs Available to College Students
        FNS oversees the states' administration of SNAP, the main Federal
    benefit program to address food insecurity for low-income households.
    In Fiscal Year 2017, the program provided benefits to about 42 million
    individuals in more than 20 million households. The purpose of the SNAP
    program is to safeguard the health and well-being of the nation's
    population by providing a monthly cash benefit to raise the purchasing
    power and nutrition level of low-income households. FNS is responsible
    for establishing program regulations and ensuring that state officials
    administer SNAP in compliance with program rules. Officials in seven
    FNS regional offices assist officials from the FNS national office in
    this oversight work. FNS shares information and policy guidance with
    state SNAP agencies in part through its regional offices, the FNS
    website, and annual conferences. The states, or in some cases counties
    within a state, administer SNAP by determining whether households meet
    the program's eligibility requirements, calculating monthly benefits
    for qualified households, issuing benefits to participants on an
    electronic benefits transfer card, and investigating and prosecuting
    recipient fraud. States are also allowed to establish some state-
    specific modifications in how they administer SNAP policy.\14\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \14\ SNAP's statutes, regulations, and waivers provide state SNAP
    agencies with various policy options. State SNAP agencies use this
    flexibility to adapt their programs to meet the needs of eligible, low-
    income households in their states. See U.S. Department of Agriculture,
    Food and Nutrition Service, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program,
    State Options Report, 14th Edition (Washington, D.C.: May 31, 2018).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Beyond SNAP, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women,
    Infants, and Children (WIC) is another Federal food assistance program
    available to eligible college students who are pregnant or
    postpartum.\15\ FNS also oversees the WIC program, which is
    administered by state and local agencies through approximately 10,000
    clinic sites.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \15\ WIC is designed to improve the health and nutritional well-
    being of pregnant and postpartum women, infants, and young children by
    providing nutritious supplemental foods, nutrition education, and
    referrals to health and social service programs. Pregnant and
    postpartum women and children up to age 5 are eligible if they are
    found to be at nutritional risk and have incomes below a certain
    threshold. WIC participants typically receive food benefits in the form
    of vouchers or coupons that they redeem at authorized retail vendors to
    obtain, at no cost, certain approved foods, including infant formula.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    College Student Eligibility for SNAP
        SNAP eligibility is largely based on a household's income and
    certain other characteristics.\16\ However, in 1980 Federal law
    restricted college students who are enrolled at least half time from
    receiving SNAP benefits.\17\ This law generally prevents traditional
    college students--who may appear to have a low income while attending
    college but receive financial support from their parents--from
    receiving SNAP benefits. Federal law establishes several exemptions to
    this restriction so that college students who are enrolled at least
    half time and have a legitimate need can access SNAP.\18\ For example,
    assuming that they meet all other SNAP eligibility criteria, a full-
    time college student may be exempt from the college student restriction
    if they are:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \16\ In general, SNAP defines a household as persons living
    together who purchase food and prepare meals together for home
    consumption. Some people who live together are included in the same
    household even if they purchase and prepare meals separately, such as
    spouses and children under 22 living with their parents. Some Federal
    program benefits are included as income when determining a household's
    SNAP eligibility, while a household may deduct certain expenses from
    the income used to calculate their eligibility for SNAP, such as those
    for dependent care if the care enables a household member to work or
    enroll in training or education.
        \17\ Food Stamp Act Amendments of 1980, Pub. L. No. 96-249, Title
    I,  139, 94 Stat. 357, 370. The statutory language restricts access to
    SNAP benefits for individuals enrolled half time or more in an
    institution of higher education. 7 U.S.C.  2015(e). An individual is
    considered to be enrolled in an institution of higher education if the
    individual is enrolled in a business, technical, trade, or vocational
    school that normally requires a high school diploma or equivalency
    certificate for enrollment in the curriculum or if the individual is
    enrolled in a regular curriculum at a college or university that offers
    degree programs regardless of whether a high school diploma is
    required. For the purposes of discussing student access to SNAP
    benefits in this report, we will refer to these individuals as college
    students.
        \18\ Throughout this report we refer to these as student
    eligibility exemptions. Students who meet one of these student
    eligibility exemptions do not automatically qualify for SNAP--they must
    still apply for SNAP and meet the household income and asset limits,
    among other eligibility criteria, to be determined eligible to receive
    SNAP benefits.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       younger than age 18 or age 50 or older;

       a parent caring for a child under age 6;

       a parent caring for a child aged 6 to 11 who is unable to
            obtain childcare to attend school and work;

       a single parent caring for a child under 12 years old and
            enrolled full time;

       working a minimum of 20 hours per week at paid employment;

       participating in a state- or federally-financed work-study
            program;

       receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
            benefits; \19\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \19\ TANF is a block grant to states to help meet the needs of low-
    income families. The program emphasizes work and time-limited cash
    assistance and gives states wide discretion on how to use TANF funds,
    including for various noncash services.

       not physically or mentally fit (e.g., have a disability);
            \20\ or
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \20\ For ease of reference, in this report we use the term
    ``disability'' to refer to this student eligibility exemption.

       enrolled in certain programs for the purpose of employment
            and training.\21\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \21\ 7 U.S.C.  2015(e)(3).

        FNS officials told us that states have flexibility regarding which
    programs may qualify a student for the exemption pertaining to
    enrollment in certain programs for the purpose of employment and
    training. These programs must be operated by a state or local
    government, target low-income households, and increase participants'
    employability. State SNAP agencies have discretion to determine which
    programs in their state qualify.\22\ These employment and training
    programs may be operated at community colleges, among other community
    partners.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \22\ 7 CFR  273.5(b)(11)(iv). The law also states that programs
    must be at least equivalent to a state SNAP Employment and Training
    (E&T) program service.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        FNS officials said that in 2014 the agency expanded its focus on
    SNAP Employment & Training (E&T) program services, which are intended
    to help individuals in SNAP households acquire skills, training, and
    work experience that will increase their ability to obtain regular
    employment that will ultimately lead to greater self-sufficiency and
    reduce their reliance on SNAP.\23\ State agencies have flexibility in
    designing SNAP E&T program services, and FNS encourages states to enter
    into partnerships with established providers, including community
    colleges, to deliver SNAP E&T program services.\24\ For example, a SNAP
    recipient could train to become a Certified Nursing Assistant at a
    community college as part of a state's SNAP E&T program. In addition to
    providing employment and training services, state SNAP E&T programs are
    required to provide participants with necessary supportive services,
    such as transportation, childcare, and textbooks.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \23\ We recently reported on the performance of the SNAP E&T
    Program. See GAO, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: More
    Complete and Accurate Information Needed on Employment and Training
    Programs, GAO-19-56 (https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-56)
    (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 20, 2018).
        \24\ A provision in the 2014 Farm Bill clarified that SNAP E&T
    program services must meet the criteria for a career or technical
    education program outlined in the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical
    Education Act (Perkins Act). For the purposes of the Perkins Act, a
    career or technical education program is defined at 20 U.S.C.  2302.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Information about the Prevalence of Food Insecurity among College
            Students Nationally is Limited and Many Potentially Eligible,
            At-Risk Students Do Not Receive SNAP
    Studies Identify a Range of Food Insecurity Rates among Respondents,
            but Results Cannot Be Generalized to All Students
        Our review of 31 studies provided some information regarding food
    insecurity among college students, but all of the studies have
    limitations and none provide estimates of food insecurity for this
    population in general.\25\ Estimates of food insecurity among college
    students included in the studies we reviewed ranged from nine percent
    to well over 50 percent, with 22 of these of 31 studies estimating food
    insecurity rates of over 30 percent.\26\ These results reflect the
    studies' different samples and methods, and the estimates from the
    studies included in our review are not generalizable to the college
    student population as a whole. None of these studies are based on a
    sufficiently large or diverse random sample of college students to
    constitute a representative study. The studies addressed the difficulty
    of sampling the college student population in different ways, including
    by extrapolating from household data, surveying students in a
    particular degree program or on a particular campus, or targeting
    particular, non-random sub-groups of the college student population.
    Most of the studies were also conducted on only one campus, although
    some studies gathered data from more than one campus.\27\ Despite the
    limitations, these studies as a whole help shed some light on the range
    of food insecurity that exists among some groups of college students.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \25\ We included studies that had been published in U.S. journals
    from January 2007 through August 2018, covered college students in the
    United States, and contained original, direct estimates of food
    insecurity among college students.
        \26\ USDA has developed three questionnaires containing 6, 10, and
    18 questions, respectively, to measure household food insecurity. All
    but three of the studies in our review adapted the questions from
    either the 6, 10, or 18 question USDA questionnaire to measure food
    insecurity among individual students. Depending on how many questions
    respondents answer affirmatively, they were designated as being either
    food-secure, having low food security, or having very low food
    security. Those with either low or very low food security were termed
    ``food-insecure.''
        \27\ Of the 31 studies included in our review, eight had survey
    respondents from multiple college campuses or across university
    systems.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Of the 31 studies we reviewed, two used nationally representative
    household data sets, the Current Population Survey and the Survey of
    Income and Program Participation.\28\ The study that used the Current
    Population Survey data from 2011-2015 found that an estimated:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \28\ The Current Population Survey, sponsored jointly by the U.S.
    Census Bureau and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, is the primary
    source of labor force statistics for the population of the United
    States. Since 1995, the Current Population Survey has included a Food
    Security Supplement (FSS) that has collected information on the food
    security, food program participation, and food expenditures of U.S.
    households. FSS survey questions ask about the household as a whole and
    not about individuals within the household. The Survey of Income and
    Program Participation, sponsored by the U.S. Census Bureau, is the
    Federal Government's premier source of information for U.S. household
    income and program participation. The Survey of Income and Program
    Participation collects data for many topics, including: economic well-
    being, family dynamics, education, assets, health insurance, childcare,
    and food security.

       11 percent of households with a student in a 4 year college
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            experienced food insecurity,

       14 percent of households with a student in vocational/
            technical education experienced food insecurity, and

       17 percent of households with a student in a community
            college experienced food insecurity.\29\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \29\ The authors found that the incidence of food insecurity for
    each of these groups was significantly different (at the .05 level)
    from the incidence of food insecurity for all adults not in that group.
    See Kristin Blagg, Craig Gundersen, Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach, and
    James P. Ziliak, Assessing Food Insecurity on Campus: A National Look
    at Food Insecurity among America's College Students (Washington, D.C.:
    The Urban Institute, August 2017).

        These national household surveys assess the food security of
    households with a college student member, but they do not directly
    survey college students and only measure food security at the
    household, and not the individual, level. For example, these household
    data may not capture a college student's food insecurity in situations
    where the student member of the household does not live at home for
    most of the year.\30\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \30\ Additionally, while these surveys are nationally
    representative overall, the number of households with college students
    in these surveys is relatively small, which limits the precision of
    these estimates.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The remaining 29 studies we reviewed collectively surveyed college
    students on approximately 200 campuses across multiple states,
    including two large state university systems, and produced a wide range
    of estimates of food insecurity. In most cases, the results can be
    characterized as applying only to the respondents of the survey.\31\
    The 29 studies based on campus surveys provide a range of food
    insecurity rates among respondents, from nine percent to over 50
    percent.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \31\ The inability to generalize beyond survey respondents occurs
    in these cases because even when a survey is sent to all students or to
    a random sample of students, the students who choose to respond may be
    non-random. For example, students with a particular interest in food
    insecurity or who want to report their own food insecurity may opt to
    participate in these surveys at higher rates than other students. As a
    result, the respondents may not fully represent the population sampled.
    Additionally, the response rates in many of the surveys used in the
    studies we reviewed were very low--in some cases ten percent or below.

       For example, a study first published in 2017 found that 15
            percent of student respondents at one 4 year college
            experienced food insecurity, with an additional 16 percent of
            student respondents at that college estimated to be at-risk for
            food insecurity.\32\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \32\ See Devon C. Payne-Sturges, Allison Tjaden, Kimberly M.
    Caldeira, Kathryn B. Vincent, and Amelia M. Arria, ``Student Hunger on
    Campus: Food Insecurity among College Students and Implications for
    Academic Institutions,'' American Journal of Health Promotion, vol. 32,
    no. 2 (2018).

       Two recent surveys of college systems in California found
            that 40 percent of respondents from University of California
            campuses and 42 percent of respondents from California State
            University campuses experienced food insecurity.\33\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \33\ See R.M. Crutchfield and J. Maguire, ``California State
    University Office of the Chancellor Study of Student Basic Needs,''
    retrieved from http://www.calstate.edu/basicneeds; and Suzanna M.
    Martinez, Karen Webb, Edward A. Frongillo, and Lorrene D. Ritchie,
    ``Food Insecurity in California's Public University System: What Are
    the Risk Factors?,'' Journal of Hunger and Environmental Nutrition,
    vol. 13, no. 1 (2017).

        Estimates of food insecurity rates in the studies we reviewed
    tended to be higher at 2 year than at 4 year colleges. Four studies
    examined only 2 year college students and three of these studies
    estimated food insecurity rates among respondents at 2 year colleges to
    be 40 percent or higher. Three studies looked at both 2 year and 4 year
    colleges and estimated food insecurity to be higher among students at 2
    year colleges. For example, a large, multi-college study conducted in
    2017 found that during the 30 days preceding the survey, 42 percent of
    community college students who responded and 36 percent of students at
    4 year colleges who responded indicated they were food-insecure.\34\
    Further, the two studies that used national household data sets found
    that households with community college and vocational education student
    members had higher food insecurity levels than households with students
    at 4 year colleges.\35\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \34\ Sara Goldrick-Rab, Jed Richardson, Joel Schneider, Anthony
    Hernandez, and Clare Cady, Still Hungry and Homeless in College
    (Madison: Wisconsin HOPE Lab, April 2018).
        \35\ See Blagg, Gundersen, Schanzenbach, and Ziliak, Assessing Food
    Insecurity on Campus. See also K. Broton, ``The Evolution of Poverty in
    Higher Education: Material Hardship, Academic Success, and Policy
    Perspectives'' (Ph.D. diss., University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2017).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Federal Data Show Most Low-Income Students Had Multiple Risk Factors
            Associated with Food Insecurity in 2016
        We identified and analyzed the prevalence of risk factors
    associated with food insecurity among students through our review of
    peer-reviewed publications on food insecurity and through interviews
    with academic researchers, college officials, state and Federal
    officials, and officials from relevant policy organizations.\36\ In the
    studies we reviewed and in our interviews with researchers, having a
    low income was consistently identified as a key risk factor for food
    insecurity. The other risk factors we included in our analysis are:
    being a first-generation college student, receiving SNAP, being a
    single parent, being disabled, being homeless or at risk of
    homelessness, and being a former foster youth.\37\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \36\ We focused on risk factors associated with food insecurity
    because nationally representative data on food insecurity among college
    students do not exist. The risk factors we identified can be grouped
    into several broad categories: low-income indicators, housing issues,
    skills/resiliency factors, demographic characteristics, and ``other
    stressors.'' For example, the academic studies we reviewed consistently
    identified having a low-income as a correlate of food insecurity. Our
    analysis focused on potential risk factors that had a corresponding
    variable in the 2016 NPSAS data set. We defined low income as a
    household income at or below 130 percent of the Federal poverty line
    because this is the income threshold for SNAP benefits for households
    that do not include a member who is 60 years of age or older or
    disabled. For more information on how we identified risk factors
    associated with food insecurity, see appendix I.
        \37\ Receiving SNAP is a risk factor for food insecurity because
    while receiving SNAP benefits addresses food insecurity to some extent,
    studies show SNAP recipients still have higher food insecurity rates
    than the general population. For example, one study found that
    receiving SNAP for 6 months only reduced food insecurity by about 13
    percent. In other words, receiving SNAP benefits may reduce food
    insecurity without completely eliminating it. See, for example, James
    Mabli, Jim Ohls, Lisa Dragoset, Laura Castner, and Betsy Santos,
    Measuring the Effect of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
    (SNAP) Participation on Food Security, a report prepared by Mathematica
    Policy Research at the request of the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
    Food and Nutrition Service (August 2013).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In our analysis, we focused on students with a household income at
    or below 130 percent of the Federal poverty line, which represents 39
    percent of all undergraduates.\38\ While having a low income is itself
    the most common risk factor for food insecurity among college students,
    our analysis found that the majority of low-income students also
    experience additional risk factors for food insecurity. The three most
    common risk factors for food insecurity among low-income students were
    being a first-generation college student; receiving SNAP (receiving
    SNAP can be considered a risk factor in that it may reduce, but not
    entirely eliminate, food insecurity); and being a single parent. Of the
    approximately 7.3 million low-income students, 31 percent were first-
    generation college students, 31 percent reported receiving SNAP, and 25
    percent were single parents.\39\ The prevalence of risk factors among
    low-income students was lower at 4 year colleges compared to other
    colleges. For example, about 21 percent of low-income 4 year college
    students were single parents in 2016 compared to about 42 percent of
    low-income students in less than 2 year programs. Low-income
    individuals enrolled in less than 2 year programs had the highest
    prevalence for almost all risk factors (see table 1).\40\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \38\ This analysis excludes foreign and international students.
        \39\ Risk factors associated with food insecurity frequently co-
    occur. Our analysis found the majority of low-income students who
    received SNAP also have one or more additional risk factors. Including
    SNAP receipt as a risk factor in our analysis did not substantially
    affect the total number of at-risk students.
        \40\ Our analysis does not estimate rates of food insecurity among
    students with these characteristics because the NPSAS does not include
    data on food insecurity. Instead, our analysis highlights low-income
    students who have at least one other risk factor associated with food
    insecurity. Education officials said they are planning to incorporate
    food insecurity questions into the next NPSAS data collection in 2020.
    See appendix I for information about how we selected and
    operationalized these risk factors.

        Table 1: Prevalence of Risk Factors Associated with Food Insecurity among Low-Income U.S. College Undergraduate Students, by College Type in 2016
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Total                    4 year schools               2 year schools         Less than 2 year schools
                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Risk factor                               Percent of                    Percent of                  Percent of                  Percent of
                                            Number of     low- income     Number of     low- income     Number of    low- income    Number of    low- income
                                             students       students       students       students      students      students      students      students
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   First generation a       2,299,206            31%      1,015,263            28%      1,188,889           34%        95,053           35%
                     Receiving SNAP b       2,257,121            31%      1,024,774            29%      1,128,133           33%       104,214           38%
                        Single parent       1,815,655            25%        756,885            21%        943,168           27%       115,602           42%
                           Disabled c       1,591,962            22%        757,267            21%        773,159           22%        61,536           22%
      Homeless or at risk of homeless       1,109,714            15%        504,397            14%        548,235           16%        57,082           21%
                Former foster youth d         788,866            11%        391,819            11%        371,419           11%        25,628            9%
                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total Low-income students e.......    7,339,571           100%      3,597,419           100%      3,466,862          100%       275,291          100%
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Source: GAO analysis of 2016 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study Data. D GAO-19-95.
    Notes: All results are within a +/-5.5 percentage point margin of error. Percentages do not sum to 100 percent because students may have more than one
      risk factor.
    a Being a first generation college student is determined based on whether the student reported that his/her parents attended college.
    b Receipt of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits is self-reported and not cross-checked with Food Nutrition Service (FNS)
      enrollment data.
    c Students self-report their disability status; this is not based on a Federal disability determination.
    d The variable we used as a proxy for having been a former foster youth is indicated by being an orphan or ward of the court.
    e Low income is defined as having a household income level at or below 130 percent of the Federal poverty level.

        Twenty-nine percent of all U.S. undergraduates had a low income and
    experienced at least one additional risk factor for food insecurity,
    according to our analysis of 2016 NPSAS data--14 percent had a low
    income and one other risk factor and 15 percent had a low income and
    two or more additional risk factors associated with food insecurity
    (see table 2). Risk factors associated with food insecurity are more
    prevalent among low-income students than among the general student
    population, with 75 percent of low-income students experiencing one or
    more additional risk factors. Students at 2 year colleges and those in
    less than 2 year programs were also more likely to have multiple risk
    factors.
    Table 2: Prevalence of Risk Factors Associated with Food Insecurity
            among Low-Income U.S. College Undergraduate Students in 2016

              Source: GAO analysis of 2016 National Postsecondary Student
            Aid Study Data D GAO-19-95.
              Notes: All results are within a +/-1 percentage point margin
            of error. Sums have been rounded to the nearest whole
            percentage point. We included the following risk factors
            associated with food insecurity in addition to having a low
            income: being a first-generation college student, receiving
            Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits,
            being a single parent, being disabled, being homeless or at
            risk of homelessness, and being a former foster youth.
    Fifty-Seven Percent of Potentially Eligible Low-Income Students with
            Food Insecurity Risk Factors in 2016 Did Not Participate in
            SNAP
        In our analysis of SNAP participation among students, we focused on
    low-income students with at least one additional risk factor for food
    insecurity because these students would likely meet the income
    threshold for SNAP eligibility and have an additional risk factor that
    could put them in need of food assistance.\41\ Our analysis of 2016
    NPSAS data identified about 5.5 million low-income students with at
    least one additional risk factor for food insecurity and found that
    about 59 percent of these students (3.3 million) reported being
    enrolled at least half time and meeting a SNAP student eligibility
    exemption. About 1.8 million of these low-income students with an
    additional risk factor reported meeting a student exemption and also
    that they were not receiving SNAP benefits.\42\ In other words, among
    potentially SNAP eligible low-income students with at least one
    additional factor for food insecurity, 57 percent did not report
    participating in SNAP in 2016 (see fig. 2).\43\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \41\ We identified potentially eligible students based on
    characteristics we identified in the NPSAS data, specifically, whether
    they had an income at or below 130 percent of the Federal poverty level
    and reported meeting one of the student exemptions we were able to
    capture in our analysis. Our analysis was not able to perfectly capture
    all the student eligibility exemptions. Some of the limitations of our
    analysis may have led to fewer students appearing to meet an
    eligibility exemption (specifically the exemption related to
    participation in other employment and training programs, for which
    there is no corresponding NPSAS variable), while others may have led to
    more students appearing to meet an eligibility exemption (specifically
    the exemptions related to disability and the availability of childcare,
    for which the NPSAS variable does not perfectly align with the SNAP
    student exemptions). A student who meets a SNAP exemption must still
    submit a SNAP application with household income and asset information;
    then the state SNAP agency reviews the application, interviews the
    applicant to gather additional relevant information, and determines
    eligibility for SNAP benefits. See appendix I for more information on
    how we identified students who potentially met a SNAP eligibility
    exemption using NPSAS data.
        \42\ The student or their parents report receipt of SNAP benefits
    on the Free Application for Federal Student Aid. Students are asked
    about their receipt of SNAP benefits again during the interview portion
    of the NPSAS. Most students we identified as not receiving SNAP were
    financially independent and could likely apply for SNAP as their own
    household; dependent students who are potentially eligible can only
    receive SNAP as part of their parents' household.
        \43\ The total SNAP participation rate among potentially eligible
    students with one additional risk factor was 43 percent. According to
    FNS, in Fiscal Year 2016, the national SNAP participation rate among
    all eligible persons was about 85 percent. See Karen Cunnyngham, Trends
    in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Participation Rates:
    Fiscal Year 2010 to Fiscal Year 2016, a report prepared at the request
    of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service
    (Washington, D.C.: Mathematica Policy Research, July 2018).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Figure 2: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
            Participation among Low-Income College Students At-Risk of Food
            Insecurity in 2016

              Source: GAO analysis of 2016 National Postsecondary Student
            Aid Study (NPSAS) data. D GAO-19-95.
              Notes: All results are within a +/-2 percentage point margin
            of error. We identified students potentially eligible for SNAP
            based on characteristics we identified in the NPSAS data
            related to SNAP eligibility-specifically, whether they had an
            income at or below 130 percent of the Federal poverty level and
            reported one of the characteristics we identified that
            correspond to the student exemptions we were able to capture in
            our analysis. Some of the limitations of our analysis may have
            led to fewer students appearing to meet an eligibility
            exemption (specifically the exemption related to participation
            in other employment and training programs, for which there is
            no corresponding NPSAS variable), while others may have led to
            more students appearing to meet an eligibility exemption
            (specifically the exemptions related to disability and the
            availability of childcare, for which the NPSAS variable does
            not perfectly align with the SNAP student exemption). We did
            not make any legal determination about actual SNAP eligibility
            for any individual. Risk factors associated with food
            insecurity include being disabled, homeless or housing
            insecure, a former foster youth, a single parent, the first-
            generation in a student's family to attend college, and
            receiving SNAP benefits. Participation in SNAP is self-reported
            through the Free Application for Federal Student Aid and these
            data are used in the NPSAS.
              a Students who did not meet an eligibility
            exemption but reported receiving SNAP (1) may be receiving SNAP
            as members of their parents' household, (2) may have attended
            college less than half time and therefore were not subject to
            the student SNAP restrictions, or (3) may have met one of the
            student exemptions we were unable to capture in our analysis.

        About \1/4\ of the 5.5 million low-income students with at least
    one additional risk factor for food insecurity did not meet any of the
    student exemptions we could identify in the NPSAS data and reported
    that they did not receive SNAP benefits.\44\ These students would
    likely be ineligible to participate in SNAP unless they begin meeting
    one of the student eligibility exemptions in the future, such as
    working 20 hours per week.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \44\ In addition, 15 percent of low-income college students with
    one additional risk factor for food insecurity did not appear to meet
    one of the student exemptions, based on our analysis, but reported they
    received SNAP in 2016. This may be because they received SNAP through
    their parents' household, were enrolled less than half time and
    therefore not subject to student SNAP restrictions, or met one of the
    student exemptions we were unable to capture in our analysis. For
    example, the NPSAS data set does not contain data for the student
    eligibility exemption ``enrolled in certain programs aimed at
    employment,'' such as the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act or
    Temporary Assistance for Needy Families employment and training
    programs. As a result, we may overestimate the number of students who
    did not meet an eligibility exemption.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Selected Colleges Are Using a Range of Approaches to Address Student
            Food Insecurity
        The 14 selected colleges we contacted are addressing student food
    insecurity in three main ways: by educating faculty, staff, and
    students; by providing students free food and emergency assistance; and
    by centralizing and coordinating their student services and helping
    students apply for Federal and state benefits. Officials at nine of
    these colleges said that they viewed student food insecurity as part of
    students' increasing inability to meet their basic needs as a result of
    the decreasing affordability of higher education or the high cost of
    living. This sentiment was echoed by selected students we spoke with
    during discussion groups (see text box).

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Student Statements from GAO Site Visits at Selected Colleges

        The reality is that I skip meals, often I don't eat lunch. I don't
     want to get lunch here on campus because it's too expensive. I get
     headaches, have trouble concentrating. I also have a disability that is
     worse if I don't eat.
        My parents stopped supporting me once I left for college, so I'm on
     my own. So the amount of food I'm able to buy is less.
        I did not have much money when I started school, and immediately had
     to choose whether to buy food or a $200 book for class. I chose to buy
     the book.
        Sometimes I get home at the end of the day and I realize I haven't
     eaten all day. And then I realize my school work is not up to my actual
     ability--I definitely think not eating affects my grades. You can tell
     when you don't feel good that you can't do your best work.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Source: GAO discussion groups with students at selected colleges taking
      steps to address food insecurity among students. D GAO-19-95.

        All of the colleges we contacted have implemented on-campus
    initiatives to combat students' food insecurity with the goal of
    improving their student outcomes, such as retention, completion, and
    loan repayment rates. As one community college official told us: ``We
    have come to realize that we can't address retention and completion
    without addressing students' basic needs.'' See figure 3 for the range
    of initiatives the 14 colleges we contacted were taking to address food
    insecurity among college students on their campuses.
    Figure 3: Initiatives by Selected Colleges to Address Student Food
            Insecurity

              Source: Information from 14 selected colleges GAO contacted.
            D GAO-19-95.

        Educating the campus community. Officials at several of the
    selected colleges told us that many administrators, faculty, staff, and
    students on their campus are unaware that students experience food
    insecurity, which hinders their college's efforts to address the issue
    (see text box). At all 14 colleges we contacted, officials said they
    are educating their campus community about available resources, both on
    campus and off, to address student food insecurity.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Student Statements from GAO Site Visits at Selected Colleges

        Students may think: `I'm educated, [SNAP] is not a program for me
     and therefore don't apply for [SNAP]. So many students, including
     graduate students, plan their evenings around events with free food--
     but the same people [who are] trying to figure out how to get free food
     every night also think they don't need [SNAP].'
        One student said that a university housing staff member told him:
     `You're a college student, you don't need SNAP.'
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Source: GAO discussion groups with students at selected colleges taking
      steps to address food insecurity among students. D GAO-19-95.

        All of the 14 colleges we contacted also educate their students
    about the resources available to address food insecurity in a variety
    of ways, such as by providing information during student orientations,
    on flyers and pamphlets, or through social media and text messages.
    Eight of the 14 colleges we contacted hold trainings or distribute
    information to faculty and staff about the on-campus and community
    resources available to students. Nine of these colleges have created
    supplemental or for-credit courses on topics such as financial literacy
    or cooking and nutrition. For example, one college we visited runs a
    workshop for first-year students on writing a spending plan and a food
    budget. At several of the selected colleges, faculty members include
    blurbs about basic needs-related resources, such as campus food
    pantries, in their syllabi.
        Providing food and emergency financial assistance. All of the 14
    colleges we contacted address student food insecurity by providing
    students free food and most provide students emergency financial
    assistance. Nationwide, the College and University Food Bank Alliance
    has reported that at least 656 colleges have or were developing food
    pantries as of September 2018.\45\ Each of the 14 colleges we contacted
    had a food pantry, with seven having started their pantry in the past 5
    years.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \45\ This is the number of college food pantries registered as
    members with the College and University Food Bank Alliance and does not
    include college food pantries that are not members.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        According to college officials, individual faculty and staff
    members are often first to identify food insecurity as a campus concern
    and provide food to students. For example, officials at several of the
    colleges we contacted traced the origins of their college's food pantry
    to a drawer of food a faculty or staff member kept in their office for
    students, or to a professor who brought jars of peanut butter or bagels
    for any student who wanted one.
        The college food pantries we visited varied in terms of their size
    and location, which can depend upon the space available on campus.\46\
    For example, some pantries we visited consisted of only a couple of
    shelves of non-perishable items, while others spanned multiple rooms
    containing refrigerators and freezers. Directors at four of the
    selected food pantries said that student need was great enough to
    support expanding the food pantry, but that they had been unable to
    expand because space on campus is at a premium (see text box).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \46\ The food pantries we visited received funding from a variety
    of sources, including from their college's budget, faculty, staff, and
    student donations, grants from community food banks, or endowments
    created by college donors.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Campus Food Pantry Coordinator Statement from GAO Site Visit at Selected
                                     College

        Demand for the food pantry has increased tenfold in the last 2
     years. We have far more demand than supply. We're trying to get
     additional delivery days for produce, because as soon as produce is
     stocked, it's gone the same day. The same is true for protein,
     especially frozen chicken.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Source: GAO interview. D GAO-19-95.

        Several pantries also had separate sections providing students
    personal health items and clothing and offered auxiliary services, such
    as information about cooking, food budgeting, or SNAP enrollment (see
    fig. 4 for pictures of some of the college food pantries at selected
    colleges).
    Figure 4: Pictures of Food Pantries from GAO Site Visits to Selected
            Colleges

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
              Sources: Photographs from colleges and GAO. D GAO-19-95.

        Officials at 11 of the selected colleges we contacted said that a
    major barrier they face is overcoming the stigma some students
    associate with accepting help for their basic needs, such as using the
    food pantry (see text box). Concern about this stigma led at least
    three of the colleges we contacted to place their food pantry in a
    less-public area of campus to address students' privacy concerns. In
    contrast, three other colleges we contacted centrally located their
    food pantry to advertise its existence and normalize its use. One
    college president we spoke with said that ``until [the college]
    normalized [the food pantry] and pulled it to the center of campus, it
    was underutilized,'' and stated that moving the food pantry to the
    center of campus quadrupled its use.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Student Statements from GAO Site Visits at Selected Colleges

        I don't tell my family that I'm struggling with food because
     everyone I know is struggling with money--I don't want to stress them
     out. It's not a comfortable conversation to have. I haven't lived with
     my parents in years, I wouldn't even know how to ask them for help.
        In the academic community, there's a normalization that you provide
     food at events to get students to come because they're hungry--one
     professor said 'starving is part of grad school.' One student responded
     to that by saying `Isn't it odd that we're using students' hunger to
     get them in the door? Why should this even be an issue?'
        I didn't recognize the physical impact of eating breakfast until I
     took Physical Education here, where the coach said we couldn't come to
     class unless we ate breakfast. I realized that eating breakfast makes
     me much more clearheaded and focused in my morning classes.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Source: GAO discussion groups with students at selected colleges taking
      steps to address food insecurity among students. D GAO-19-95.

        Officials at 9 of the 14 colleges we contacted reported that their
    campus food pantry had seen an increased number of users over time as
    the student body became aware of this resource. One student we spoke
    with said that his college's food pantry was his only source of food,
    while another estimated that the food pantry allowed him to save about
    $100 per month on food.
        Officials at 10 of the 14 selected colleges we contacted told us
    they partner with national organizations or campus dining services or
    both to try to respond to the needs of students who might be
    experiencing food insecurity. For instance, public colleges in
    California receive state funding to incentivize them to address student
    food insecurity in a variety of ways, including by establishing campus
    food pantries, providing information to students about SNAP benefits,
    and establishing meal point donation programs.\47\ Two California
    colleges we contacted were working with a national organization to set
    up a meal point donation program. One college in another state we
    visited included in their contract with their private dining services
    vendor funding for several initiatives, such as a campus-wide survey of
    student food insecurity, on-campus farmer[s'] markets, and a learning
    kitchen that teaches students hands-on cooking skills. Additionally,
    two of the colleges we contacted are working to have SNAP benefits
    accepted at campus markets.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \47\ Cal. Educ. Code  66027.8(d).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Beyond providing students with free food, officials at 12 of the 14
    colleges we contacted said that their college makes emergency cash
    assistance available to students through small loans, grants, or
    grocery store or gas station gift cards. These emergency funds are
    intended to help students pay bills for one-time financial emergencies,
    such as buying groceries or paying for a car repair or a utility bill.
    One community college we visited directly ties this assistance to its
    retention efforts, providing a one-time amount of up to $500 for
    students judged to have sufficient need and who are likely to remain in
    school if the bill is paid.
        Centralizing and coordinating student services and access to
    benefits. Officials at many of the colleges we contacted told us they
    have centralized their student support and financial aid services,
    among others, and several have introduced a case management approach to
    better collaborate across departments and more efficiently and
    holistically address their students' basic needs (see text box). Of the
    14 colleges we contacted, eight had centralized some or all of their
    student services. For example, one community college we visited has co-
    located many of its student services--including its financial aid,
    academic counseling, payroll, food pantry, veterans' services, and
    women's resource center, among others--around a central hub of the
    student union. Students visiting this central hub may be assigned a
    caseworker to connect them with the on-campus, community, state, and
    Federal benefits for which they are eligible. Officials at a few of the
    colleges we contacted said that centrally locating student services
    also helped faculty and staff by providing a single point of contact to
    refer students. One official said that she tells faculty and peer
    mentors: ``If you see a student in any kind of distress at all--mental
    health, hunger, homelessness, anything--send them to us.'' She added
    that it is too much to ask faculty to figure out which office or
    official to send students to for specific concerns.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Student Statements from GAO Site Visits at Selected Colleges

        [The college's centralized benefits hub, which offers food and
     assistance applying for Federal and state benefit programs] has helped
     me so much. I visit [it] probably two times a week and they helped me
     get my SNAP benefits. When I am hungry, I can't concentrate on school
     or pay attention to my studies.
        The entire basement level of the student center is being turned into
     a basic needs hub. In addition to the food pantry, the hub will also
     include the student SNAP office, the student environmental resource
     center [which is a partner in building sustainable and equitable food
     systems on campus], and other student benefits services. Services on
     this campus have been very decentralized, and this centralized hub will
     provide one location for students to go to get assistance with their
     basic needs--it's going to be a big help having everything in one
     place.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Source: GAO discussion groups with students at selected colleges taking
      steps to address food insecurity among students. D GAO-19-95.

        Officials at 8 of the 14 colleges we contacted told us their campus
    has established a coordinated benefits access program or is actively
    screening students for potential eligibility for, and helping them
    enroll in, Federal and state benefit programs like SNAP, WIC, Medicaid,
    and the Earned Income Tax Credit.\48\ For example, one community
    college we contacted had a staff member build a statistical model to
    analyze the college's existing data on first-time students, such as
    data on students' household income, demographics, and course
    enrollment, to identify students at risk of not returning to college
    and to provide these students, their professors, and their faculty
    advisors with information about on-campus resources. Officials at one
    college we visited told us the campus hosts weekly clinics with county
    SNAP eligibility analysts to screen students for SNAP eligibility and
    help them apply for benefits. At a community college system we visited,
    the Administration told us they were working with the state SNAP agency
    to identify which students were receiving SNAP benefits and they plan
    to send targeted information on SNAP to those potentially eligible
    students not receiving benefits.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \48\ Medicaid is a joint Federal and state program that provides
    health coverage to millions of Americans, including some low-income
    individuals, families and children, pregnant women, the elderly, and
    people with disabilities. The Earned Income Tax Credit is a Federal
    benefit for low- to moderate-income workers.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Officials at three of the colleges we contacted said that their
    college was purchasing software that creates a centralized portal where
    faculty and staff can share information about a student's situation
    with student support providers so they can better provide help. For
    example, at a college we visited that is using such software, officials
    said that a professor might note in the centralized portal that an at-
    risk student was either failing or not attending a class, and that
    student would be flagged in the portal to notify academic advisors,
    counselors, and other college staff who can direct the student to the
    on-campus resources they may need, such as the food pantry or help in
    completing a SNAP application.
    While SNAP Can Supplement Other Federal Aid for Some Low-Income
            Students, FNS Does Not Share Key Information to Help States
            Better Leverage SNAP to Assist Students
    Federal Programs Are Limited in the Extent to Which They Can Address
            the Needs of College Students Experiencing Food Insecurity
    Federal Student Aid Generally Does Not Cover All College Costs for Low-
            Income Students
        Federal grant aid is available to help low-income college students
    and their families pay for college, but for many students, the maximum
    amount of grant aid available to them does not cover all of the costs
    associated with attending college.\49\ Officials from many of the
    organizations we interviewed said that the Federal Pell Grant Program
    for low-income college students was a major source of financial support
    for these students, but that it does not cover the full cost of college
    attendance for many students, and particularly for those at 4 year
    colleges or in areas with high costs of living.\50\ Most low-income
    students also work while attending college.\51\ Despite this, several
    college officials we interviewed told us that the gap between the
    amount of financial aid available and what it costs to attend college
    is continuing to grow. One financial aid director told us that students
    used to be able to pay for groceries or rent with some of their
    financial aid ``refund'' money (that is, financial aid funds refunded
    to a student after tuition, fees, and other school charges are paid,
    which can be used to pay for other education and living expenses);
    however, he said students rarely receive a refund any more. According
    to data from Education's National Center for Education Statistics, the
    average Pell Grant used to cover more of the cost of college than it
    does today. For example, about 40 years ago--soon after the Pell Grant
    Program was established--the average award covered about 50 percent of
    the average cost of in-state tuition, fees, room, and board at public 2
    year colleges, and 39 percent at public 4 year colleges. Today, the
    average Pell Grant award amount covers just 37 percent of these costs
    at public 2 year colleges, and 19 percent at public 4 year
    colleges.\52\ Federal Work-Study Program employment opportunities may
    be available to qualifying students, but several officials we
    interviewed noted that funding for this program is extremely limited,
    especially at community colleges where there are more students at risk
    of food insecurity.\53\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \49\ Most states also have need- and merit-based student aid
    programs.
        \50\ For 2018-2019, the maximum annual Federal Pell Grant award is
    $6,095.
        \51\ According to 2015-2016 NPSAS data, 60 percent of low-income
    students had a job while enrolled in college.
        \52\ These figures are based on data from the U.S. Department of
    Education, National Center for Education Statistics and Federal Pell
    Grant Program End of Year reports. See National Center for Education
    Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics, Table 330.10 and Pell Grant
    End of Year reports at https://www2.ed.gov/finaid/prof/resources/data/
    pell-data.html.
        \53\ The Federal Work-Study Program allows students to earn up to
    their awarded amount by working at an on-campus job or certain off-
    campus jobs. Students who participate in the Federal Work-Study Program
    would meet one of the student SNAP exemptions. A few officials told us
    that because funds for each campus are limited and awarded to students
    on a first come, first served basis, many students are unable to
    participate.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        When grant funds and student earnings are insufficient to cover the
    full cost of college, students can take out Federal student loans to
    make up the difference. Officials at a national association of
    community colleges and at a few colleges we visited told us that low-
    income students often use Federal loans to help them pay for basic
    living expenses--such as food or rent. While these loans can be helpful
    for some students who need additional funds to support themselves while
    in college, officials at a few community colleges also cautioned that
    loans may not be the best choice for all students, and may worsen the
    financial position of already vulnerable students. For example, at one
    4 year college we visited, the financial aid director said that many of
    their students have reached their maximum Federal lifetime loan limit
    (see text box for an example).\54\ He also noted that graduates have,
    on average, $25,000 of student loan debt. He said his college has
    historically trained its students for public sector careers, e.g.,
    teachers or counselors, and he worries that salaries in these
    professions will not allow graduates to repay this amount of student
    loans.\55\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \54\ In 2018, the aggregate lifetime Federal Direct Loan limit for
    dependent undergraduate students was $31,000. For independent
    undergraduate students, it was $57,500.
        \55\ Graduates who enter public service careers full time with
    qualifying employers are eligible for forgiveness for part of their
    Federal student loan debt after meeting certain other requirements. GAO
    found that many borrowers are confused about this program and we
    recommended that Education do more to ensure students understand which
    employers qualify for the program. See GAO, Public Service Loan
    Forgiveness: Education Needs to Provide Better Information for the Loan
    Servicer and Borrowers, GAO-18-547 (http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-18-
    547) (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 5, 2018).

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Student Statement from GAO Site Visit at Selected College

        I was originally in the Registered Nursing (RN) program, but had to
     switch to the Licensed Practicing Nursing (LPN) program because that
     program requires fewer credits, and I have maxed out my Federal student
     loans and have no further funds to pay for the additional classes
     needed for an RN.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Source: GAO interview. D GAO-19-95.

    College Students Have Limited Access to Federal Food Assistance
            Programs
        Given the limitations of Federal student aid funding, officials
    from several organizations we interviewed spoke about the importance of
    leveraging other Federal benefits, such as food assistance programs, to
    help address the needs of college students experiencing food
    insecurity. According to research on the effect of SNAP benefits, these
    benefits can provide some help to students, although they may not
    completely eliminate their food insecurity.\56\ However, college
    students have limited access to several key Federal food assistance
    programs that could help address some of their needs. For example,
    several college officials we spoke with noted that many low-income
    students received federally subsidized free or reduced price lunch
    while in elementary and secondary school, but a comparable program does
    not exist for college students, even though many face the same level of
    need. In addition, many college students are prohibited from receiving
    Federal SNAP benefits because of restrictions on student eligibility.
    Several college officials told us that when students are unable to meet
    one of the student exemptions for SNAP benefits, they will try to
    connect them to community resources or to the on-campus food pantry,
    but a few characterized these as short-term solutions to their
    students' problems. We also heard from officials at several colleges
    that students who are pregnant or postpartum may qualify for the WIC
    program, which provides food assistance to mothers with infants and
    young children; however, this program serves only a small minority of
    college students who may be experiencing food insecurity.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \56\ See, for example, Mabli, Ohls, Dragoset, Castner, and Santos,
    Measuring the Effect.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Some State SNAP Agencies Are Assisting Potentially Eligible Students to
            Access SNAP Benefits
        About \1/3\ of state SNAP agencies reported they were taking
    actions to inform college students about SNAP and help them access SNAP
    benefits.\57\ These state SNAP agencies reported assisting college
    students in various ways, including by developing guidance or training
    for state and college officials on student eligibility rules, by
    conducting outreach at local colleges, or by providing students with
    options to qualify for a SNAP student exemption by participating in
    employment and training services.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \57\ We emailed the SNAP directors of all 50 states and the
    District of Columbia to ask what, if any, actions their state agency
    was taking to address college student food insecurity. Fifty of the 51
    state SNAP agencies responded to our email for a 98 percent response
    rate. About a quarter of states that responded to our email indicated
    that they had implemented a state option related to averaging student
    work hours on a monthly basis instead of requiring 20 hours per week to
    qualify for a student exemption. For the purposes of our analysis, we
    did not include this as a state action because it is an approach to
    implementing an existing student exemption. This email inquiry was
    conducted in March and April 2018 and may not include all state actions
    that have occurred since April 2018.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Several States Are Clarifying Student Rules and Conducting Training and
            Outreach about SNAP Student Eligibility
        Eleven state SNAP agencies reported clarifying policy on college
    student eligibility to SNAP staff who determine eligibility for
    benefits or providing training to third-party partners to increase
    awareness of students' potential eligibility for SNAP. For example, in
    2015 and 2017 California's state SNAP agency issued policy letters to
    its county offices clarifying college student eligibility rules and
    expanding the list of college programs that qualify a student for an
    exemption under the employment and training provision.\58\ Minnesota's
    state SNAP agency reported that it conducts technical assistance
    training on student eligibility issues for its caseworkers twice a
    year.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \58\ In California and in nine other states, counties separately
    administer the SNAP program on behalf of the state SNAP agency.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        State SNAP agencies also reported partnering with colleges to
    increase awareness of potential student SNAP eligibility or to reduce
    the burden of the application process for students. For example,
    Missouri's state SNAP agency reported that it recently began a
    partnership with the state's community college association to increase
    students' awareness of their potential eligibility for SNAP. To reduce
    the burden students face in applying for SNAP benefits, Rhode Island's
    state SNAP agency reported that its outreach partner holds regular
    ``office hours'' at state community college campuses to answer
    questions about SNAP, screen students for potential eligibility, and
    assist with application completion. Officials from California's state
    SNAP agency stated that its county SNAP agencies periodically hold SNAP
    enrollment clinics on college campuses. At one time, a community
    college in California had a county SNAP staff member located on campus
    to assist their students with benefit applications.
        Finally, two of the states we visited partially fund their state
    higher education grants for low-income college students with some of
    their Federal TANF block grant dollars.\59\ Because these grant
    recipients receive TANF benefits, they are eligible for the
    corresponding SNAP student exemption. For example, the California state
    SNAP agency issued guidance in February 2017 to all of its county
    offices to explain that this SNAP student exemption applies to any
    student who receives the state's higher-education grant for low-income
    students.\60\ In Massachusetts, the state SNAP agency issued similar
    guidance in August 2017 to state SNAP staff who determine eligibility
    for benefits.\61\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \59\ States may use Federal TANF block grant funds on a wide range
    of benefits and services, including to support work, education, and
    training programs.
        \60\ California Health and Human Services Agency, Department of
    Social Services, CalFresh Student Eligibility, All County Letter No.
    17-05 (Sacramento: February 2017).
        \61\ Massachusetts Executive Office of Health and Human Services,
    Department of Transitional Assistance, SNAP--Student Eligibility
    Updates, Online Guide Transmittal 2017-52 (Boston: August 2017).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Some States Are Implementing Approaches that Provide Additional
            Employment and Training Options for Certain Students
        Some state SNAP agencies are taking steps related to the exemption
    for students who are enrolled in certain employment and training
    programs, which can be offered at 2 year colleges and other community-
    based organizations.\62\ Seven states reported taking steps to
    designate specific programs at their community colleges to qualify as
    employment and training programs to make it easier for students and
    SNAP staff who determine eligibility for benefits to identify students
    who could meet this exemption. In these states, according to the SNAP
    agency, they have determined that certain programs at community
    colleges qualify enrolled students for one of the student SNAP
    exemptions because they are programs for low-income households, aimed
    at employment, and run by a state or local government.\63\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \62\ Many of the student SNAP exemptions are relatively easy for a
    state SNAP staff member who determines eligibility for benefits to
    verify, for example, being a single parent of a child under age 12 or
    participating in the Federal Work-Study Program. One student exemption-
    related to participation in employment and training programs--is less
    straightforward because states must review the components of each
    program and independently determine if it qualifies as such a program
    under FNS rules. FNS officials told us state SNAP agencies are not
    required to report information on how many states take these approaches
    or how many students qualify for SNAP through the employment and
    training student exemption.
        \63\ See 7 U.S.C.  2015(e)(3)(D); see also 7 CFR
    273.5(b)(11)(iv).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        According to FNS, state SNAP agencies have the authority to decide
    which programs would qualify enrolled students for this exemption, and
    several states have identified qualifying programs at community
    colleges in their state.\64\ Students in these designated community
    college programs who attend at least half time and do not meet one of
    the other student exemptions can be eligible for SNAP under this
    provision if they meet all other eligibility criteria. In 2010,
    Massachusetts' state SNAP agency began using a dedicated form that
    provides community college students in these state-designated
    employment and training programs support for their SNAP application.
    According to officials at the state SNAP agency, this form has helped
    to streamline the application process for both students and state SNAP
    agency staff who determine eligibility for benefits.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \64\ These programs must meet the requirements detailed at 7 CFR
    273.5(b)(11)(iv).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Other states are developing opportunities for students to meet the
    employment and training exemption through partnerships with the states'
    SNAP Employment & Training (E&T) programs. Twenty-four state SNAP
    agencies reported that they have implemented a third-party partnership
    with at least one community college to deliver SNAP E&T program
    services on campus.\65\ Under these state SNAP E&T program
    partnerships, the state SNAP agency works with community colleges to
    enroll SNAP recipients in programs that are designed to increase the
    employability of the participant. One FNS official told us that state
    SNAP E&T programs were an ideal way to provide college students who
    qualify for SNAP benefits with additional services and support, such as
    counseling or transportation assistance, and that they can help
    students persist in their community college program and ultimately
    improve their self-sufficiency.\66\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \65\ FNS-reported data as of Fiscal Year 2018. SNAP E&T programs
    can also partner with other community-based organizations to deliver
    services.
        \66\ According to FNS, state SNAP E&T programs are a secondary
    payer for students who are enrolled in college programs. For example,
    if a student is determined to be eligible for a Pell Grant or other
    Federal financial aid, these funds must be used first to pay for
    tuition. Once other funding sources have been exhausted, state SNAP E&T
    program funds may be used for any outstanding tuition and fees.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        According to FNS, state agencies can enroll individuals in these
    SNAP E&T programs in one of two ways. A SNAP recipient may enroll in
    the designated community college training program affiliated with the
    state's SNAP E&T program, which allows them to continue receiving SNAP
    benefits even if they attend the program more than half time. Or, the
    community college partner can refer individuals already enrolled at the
    college to the state SNAP agency to determine if they are eligible for
    state SNAP E&T program services--a process known as a ``reverse
    referral.'' In the case of a reverse referral, individuals who are
    enrolled in certain training programs and who are experiencing food
    insecurity may be able to qualify for a student exemption to receive
    SNAP, as well as additional services through state SNAP E&T
    programs.\67\ According to Washington's state SNAP agency, SNAP E&T
    programs operate at all 34 community colleges in the state, and have
    served approximately 20,000 students each fiscal year since 2015. A
    senior program official at Washington's state SNAP agency told us that
    the vast majority of incoming community college students in Washington
    are screened for potential eligibility and reverse referral into the
    state's SNAP E&T program services.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \67\ Students who are referred to state SNAP E&T programs and
    qualify for a student SNAP exemption must meet other financial and non-
    financial eligibility criteria to receive benefits.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    College and State Officials Reported That FNS Does Not Share Key
            Information That Could Help Them Assist Students Experiencing
            Food Insecurity
        At 9 of the 14 colleges we contacted, some officials and students
    we spoke with indicated that they either did not know about or found it
    difficult to understand the SNAP student rules. For example, in a
    student discussion group at one community college, some students said
    they were uncertain about how SNAP student rules applied to them when
    they lived with their parents but received no financial support or food
    from them. Officials at another college told us that many students are
    not even aware of or do not realize that the SNAP student rules apply
    to them. In a student discussion group we held at another college, some
    students told us that they had been unaware that they may be eligible
    for SNAP until they spoke to someone at their college. Further, we
    found college officials may also have difficulty understanding SNAP
    student rules--for example, officials at one college said that they
    believed that college students are not eligible for SNAP. College
    officials can be an important source of information for students
    regarding SNAP, but this can create barriers to access if college
    officials do not have the correct information. For example, at one
    college we visited, two students said they were misinformed by
    officials at their college or their state SNAP agency about their
    potential eligibility for SNAP.
        Officials we met with at three colleges said that they would like
    information from FNS about college student eligibility rules so they
    can help educate and enroll students in SNAP, but FNS has not developed
    such targeted information to distribute to colleges and students.
    Officials at one college said they requested information from FNS to
    distribute to students, but the general SNAP eligibility brochure FNS
    provided did not reference college student eligibility
    requirements.\68\ A senior FNS official said developing printed
    materials expressly explaining the college student eligibility
    requirements is primarily a state agency responsibility, and that
    information about this topic was available on the FNS website. However,
    we found that the information specifically related to college student
    eligibility requirements on the FNS website was not easy to find. For
    example, the main webpage of FNS's SNAP eligibility website lists the
    special circumstances under which certain specific populations may be
    SNAP eligible, but it does not include college students nor does it
    link to the webpage listing the student exemptions.\69\ Further, the
    webpage containing information on SNAP for college students restates
    the list of student exemptions from the regulations, using legal and
    technical language that is not always easy to understand. For example,
    the webpage states that students ``may be able to get SNAP benefits if
    otherwise eligible, and they `get public assistance benefits under a
    Title IV--A program of the Social Security Act.' '' Many college
    officials and students may not realize this refers to TANF benefits. In
    addition, the website does not list being ``not physically or mentally
    fit'' (e.g., having a disability) as one of the ways to qualify for a
    student exemption, nor does it provide information relevant to how
    students may qualify for an exemption because they are assigned to or
    placed in certain employment and training programs.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \68\ Officials at two FNS regional offices told us they were aware
    of a few colleges in their regions that had developed SNAP materials to
    distribute to students, but these materials were locally developed and
    disseminated only at certain colleges.
        \69\ According to federally developed web usability guidelines,
    important information should be available within two or three clicks of
    the homepage. We found the SNAP for Students webpage was not linked to
    the SNAP Eligibility webpage, and only found the SNAP for Students
    webpage by conducting a keyword search on the FNS website. See
    Department of Health and Human Services, The Research-based Web Design
    and Usability Guidelines, Enlarged/Expanded Edition, (Washington, D.C.:
    August 2006).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        A senior official from the FNS national office said that college
    student eligibility and the student exemptions were among the most
    complicated SNAP policies to explain and that they frequently receive
    questions from the general public about how the rules apply to certain
    students in certain situations. This official said that because the
    student SNAP rules are so difficult to navigate, FNS responds to these
    individual questions and circumstances as they arise, rather than
    developing materials that could apply broadly to every situation, and
    that state SNAP agencies are primarily responsible for assisting
    students. Officials at all four FNS regional offices we spoke with said
    materials explaining the student rules tailored to colleges and college
    students would prove useful to states and colleges in their regions.
    While developing clear written materials about a complicated policy is
    challenging, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government
    states that agencies should communicate key information to their
    internal and external stakeholders.\70\ Further, a core activity of the
    SNAP program is to work with its partners to ensure that those eligible
    for nutrition assistance can make informed decisions about applying for
    the program.\71\ The lack of clear and easily accessible information on
    student SNAP eligibility requirements can make it difficult for
    potentially eligible students to make informed choices about applying
    for SNAP, and for colleges to develop their own materials to help
    potentially eligible students apply for SNAP. As a result, students
    could miss opportunities to obtain the additional support they may need
    to stay in college and graduate.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \70\ GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government,
    GAO-14-704G (http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-704G) (Washington,
    D.C.: Sept. 10, 2014).
        \71\ The SNAP program's other core activity is to improve program
    administration and ensure program integrity.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In addition, we found that some state SNAP agencies had limited
    information about approaches that they could take to help potentially
    eligible college students who may qualify for a student exemption.
    Specifically, officials at four of the five state SNAP agencies and at
    three of the four FNS regional offices that we spoke with said that it
    is not entirely clear to them under which circumstances college
    students may be eligible for a student exemption if they are enrolled
    in a qualifying employment and training program run by a community
    college. State SNAP agency officials in four of the five states, as
    well as officials in three of the four FNS regional offices, told us
    that they would like more information from FNS about how to implement
    the approach some state SNAP agencies are taking to help college
    students who may qualify for an employment and training exemption
    access SNAP. One state SNAP agency official said that she believes that
    the lack of guidance and leadership from FNS on this issue leaves many
    state SNAP agencies operating with uncertainty, and, as a result, many
    of them do not take any actions to identify those college students who
    may qualify for an employment and training exemption under SNAP rules.
        Several of the FNS regional office officials we interviewed agreed
    that the FNS national office was uniquely positioned to collect and
    share information about potential approaches that states are using to
    implement the student exemption for employment and training programs so
    that other states could also consider using such approaches to assist
    low-income college students who may qualify. Officials at one FNS
    regional office said that an FAQ-type document on college student
    eligibility scenarios would be helpful. At the same time, a few FNS
    regional office officials said that the national office is cautious
    about developing information for all states when each state's SNAP
    program operates slightly differently.\72\ According to FNS national
    office officials, FNS issued the most recent document discussing
    general SNAP eligibility for students in August 2010. This document
    explained that certain employment and training services provided by a
    state or local government may qualify a student for a SNAP student
    exemption. In November 2016, six Federal agencies including USDA (on
    behalf of FNS) released an interagency letter, Aligning Federal
    Supports and Program Delivery for College Access and Completion, that
    includes information from FNS related to general student eligibility
    for SNAP.\73\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \72\ As previously noted, state SNAP agencies have flexibility to
    adapt their programs to meet the needs of eligible, low-income
    households in their states.
        \73\ See Aligning Federal Supports and Program Delivery for College
    Access and Completion (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 15, 2016). According to
    an Education official, this interagency letter was the product of the
    Federal College Access and Completion Interagency Working Group.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        However, neither of these documents included specific strategies or
    examples of approaches states have used or can use to help potentially
    eligible college students access SNAP benefits. Standards for Internal
    Control in the Federal Government states that agency management should
    internally communicate the necessary information to achieve the
    program's objectives.\74\ In addition, part of the role of the FNS
    national office is to work with its partners, including its regional
    offices and the state SNAP agencies, to improve program administration
    and ensure access to benefits for eligible individuals. FNS officials
    told us FNS has several existing mechanisms for information sharing
    with the regional offices and the state SNAP agencies, including policy
    memos, webinars, and annual conferences. However, a senior FNS official
    told us that she was not aware of any plans to share additional
    information with state SNAP agencies or regional offices on this topic,
    noting that college students are a relatively small population compared
    to other SNAP recipients. As a result, state SNAP agencies may not be
    aware of approaches other states have used that they could take to
    assist college students experiencing food insecurity in accessing SNAP
    benefits, and FNS may not be fulfilling its role to ensure program
    access for college students who are eligible.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \74\ GAO-14-704G (http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-704G).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In addition to noting how complicated the college student SNAP
    eligibility rules are, most state higher education and SNAP policy
    organization officials we interviewed remarked that the student
    exemptions can make it challenging for many students who are food-
    insecure to obtain SNAP benefits that could help them succeed in
    college. Specifically, a few researchers and state higher education
    officials said the eligibility restrictions were instituted when
    college students were generally from higher-income households, whereas
    many students enrolled in college today are from low-income households.
    Several higher education officials and one researcher noted that when a
    student qualifies for a student exemption by working 20 hours a week,
    it can have a detrimental impact on college completion. For example,
    research has shown that full-time college students who work more than
    15 hours a week or who reduce their college course load and attend part
    time in order to increase their work hours are less likely to complete
    their degree or educational program.\75\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \75\ See, for example, Robert Bozick, ``Making It Through the First
    Year of College: The Role of Students' Economic Resources, Employment,
    and Living Arrangements,'' Sociology of Education, vol. 8, no. 3
    (2007); and Sarah Blanchard Kyte, Who Does Work Work For? Understanding
    Equity in Working Learner College and Career Success, (Iowa City, IA:
    ACT Center for Equity in Learning, July 2017). Officials at all state
    SNAP agencies, along with several college and state higher education
    policy officials, as well as a few students that we interviewed also
    noted that if college students were allowed to count unpaid internships
    or similar volunteer work in their field of study to qualify for the
    student exemption by working 20 hours per week, it could help support
    their academic and future career success.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        At the same time, FNS officials and officials at one state SNAP
    agency stressed the importance of having proper controls in place to
    prevent certain students from improperly receiving benefits. A senior
    FNS official noted that the college student restrictions were
    established to prohibit traditional college students who are supported
    by their parents from receiving SNAP benefits. This official said that
    the student eligibility rules should ensure that middle-class and
    wealthy students do not access SNAP while attending college. Further,
    officials at a few organizations and one state SNAP agency we
    interviewed expressed support for some of the student exemptions, such
    as the exemption for college students who work 20 hours per week.\76\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \76\ Many Federal means-tested benefits programs require some low-
    income recipients to work in order to receive benefits. For more
    information, see our prior work on Federal means-tested benefits
    programs, GAO, Federal Low-Income Programs: Eligibility and Benefits
    Differ for Selected Programs Due to Complex and Varied Rules, GAO-17-
    558 (http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-17-558) (Washington, D.C.: June
    29, 2017).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Conclusions
        The Federal Government invests billions of dollars annually in
    higher education through grants and loans to low-income students.
    Partially as a result of this investment, a college education is
    accessible to more low-income Americans than ever before. Despite this
    Federal support, many low-income college students struggle to meet
    their basic needs, including obtaining the food that they need, and may
    drop out of college as a result. SNAP can be an important source of
    support for low-income students, although it may not completely
    ameliorate food insecurity. However, because the SNAP eligibility
    requirements for college students can be difficult for students and
    colleges to understand, students may be unaware of or misinformed about
    their potential eligibility for SNAP. FNS has not made information that
    clearly explains student SNAP eligibility requirements easily
    accessible to students and college officials and, as a result, students
    experiencing food insecurity may remain unaware that they could be
    eligible for SNAP.
        In addition, some states are exercising existing state
    flexibilities to help students experiencing food insecurity to access
    SNAP, but FNS does not actively share this information among state SNAP
    agencies. By collecting and sharing information on approaches taken by
    state SNAP agencies active in this area, FNS could potentially help
    state SNAP agencies identify ways to help eligible students who are
    experiencing food insecurity. Better supporting these students will
    also help the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Education
    meet their respective goals and make good use of the substantial
    Federal investment in higher education while improving the health and
    nutrition of individuals experiencing food insecurity.
    Recommendations for Executive Action
        We are making the following two recommendations to FNS:
        The Administrator of FNS should make information on their website
    regarding student SNAP eligibility requirements easier to understand
    and more accessible, as a resource for colleges and state SNAP
    agencies. (Recommendation 1)
        The Administrator of FNS should coordinate with its regional
    offices to collect and review information about existing SNAP
    flexibilities and examples of approaches state SNAP agencies are taking
    to assist eligible college students to access SNAP benefits, and share
    such information with state SNAP agencies. (Recommendation 2)
    Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
        We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Agriculture
    and the Department of Education for review and comment. The Department
    of Education provided technical comments, which we incorporated into
    the report as appropriate. On November 28, 2018, and December 7, 2018,
    the Directors of the FNS SNAP Program Development Division and Office
    of Employment and Training met with us to provide the agency's comments
    orally. At the December 7, 2018 meeting, FNS officials told us they
    partially concur with our recommendations and believe that FNS has
    sufficient guidance in place for states to provide further information
    to colleges. However, the agency agrees with the intent of GAO's
    recommendations and plans to review its existing guidance to determine
    if any improvements are warranted. We continue to believe that
    additional action is necessary to address our recommendations. While
    reviewing its existing information would be helpful, we believe that
    changes to FNS's existing information are also needed to improve the
    clarity and accessibility of information about SNAP student eligibility
    requirements on FNS's website, and that FNS needs to work with its
    regional offices to identify and share additional information about
    state approaches to assist eligible college students with access to
    SNAP benefits. In response to FNS officials' comments, we also
    clarified both recommendations to focus more on actions that fall under
    the responsibility of the FNS National Office. FNS also provided
    technical comments, which we incorporated into the report as
    appropriate.
        As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the
    contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until
    30 days from the report date. At that time, we will send copies of this
    report to the Secretaries of Agriculture, Education, appropriate
    Congressional committees, and other interested parties. In addition,
    the report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at http://
    www.gao.gov.
        If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
    contact me at (202) 512-7215 or larink@gao.gov. Contact points for our
    Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on
    the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to
    this report are listed in appendix II.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Kathryn Larin,
        Director, Education, Workforce, And Income Security.
    Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
        This report examines (1) what is known about the extent of food
    insecurity among college students and their use of the Supplemental
    Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP); (2) how selected colleges are
    addressing student food insecurity; and (3) the extent to which Federal
    programs assist college students experiencing food insecurity. This
    appendix provides details of the data sources used to answer these
    questions, the analyses we conducted, and any limitations to our
    analysis.
    Overview
        We used multiple methodologies to conduct this review. We conducted
    a review of academic studies based on original research to determine
    what is known about food insecurity among college students. We assessed
    the quality of these studies by evaluating their research methods and
    determined that the studies we included in our review were sufficiently
    reliable for our use. To describe the prevalence of risk factors for
    food insecurity among college students, we used data on student
    characteristics from the nationally representative National
    Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS). We assessed the reliability of
    NPSAS data by reviewing existing information about the data and the
    system that produced them and by interviewing agency officials
    knowledgeable about the data. We determined that the data were
    sufficiently reliable for the purposes of describing the prevalence of
    risk factors for food insecurity among college students and students'
    participation in SNAP.
        To understand how selected colleges address student food
    insecurity, we conducted four state site visits (California, Kentucky,
    Massachusetts, and Michigan) selected based on whether colleges and/or
    state government agencies were taking steps to address food insecurity
    among students, and geographic diversity, among other criteria. In each
    state, we visited public colleges and universities, where we met with
    college officials, students, and researchers. We also interviewed state
    higher education and SNAP officials, as well as experts from relevant
    policy organizations. To assess Federal efforts, we identified Federal
    programs that may assist college students in need of food, interviewed
    officials from Education and USDA, and reviewed relevant Federal laws,
    regulations, and agency guidance and program documents, as well as
    Federal internal controls standards applicable to these programs.
    Review of Studies
        To understand what is currently known about the extent of food
    insecurity among college students, we conducted an in-depth review of
    studies. Our preliminary search in Scopus identified a recent
    systematic literature review on food insecurity on college campuses.\1\
    Upon reviewing the article's scope and methodology, we chose to update
    rather than duplicate their efforts. We expanded the original search
    terms to include ``higher education'' and ``postsecondary'' among
    others, and searched two additional research databases (ProQuest and
    Scopus) in addition to the original list of sources (MEDLINE,
    PSYCHINFO, and Web of Science). We identified peer-reviewed journal
    articles and other published research through this search. Through news
    reports on food insecurity and interviews with researchers, we also
    identified studies published up to August 31, 2018 that may not have
    been included in our initial review. We included studies in our review
    if they met the following criteria: (1) were based on research
    conducted and published in the United States; (2) were published since
    2007; and (3) contained original, direct estimates of food insecurity
    rates among college students.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Meg Bruening, Katy Argo, Devon Payne-Sturges, and Melissa N.
    Laska, ``The Struggle is Real: A Systematic Review of Food Insecurity
    on Postsecondary Education Campuses,'' Journal of the Academy of
    Nutrition and Dietetics, vol. 117, no. 11 (2017).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        We identified a total of 35 studies that met these criteria and
    conducted an initial review to determine if the studies met generally
    accepted social science standards and were appropriate for our purpose
    to provide information on the prevalence of food insecurity among
    college students. We eliminated some studies if we determined that the
    methods were not appropriate or rigorous--specifically, we concluded
    that we could not report the results of four studies due to research
    design limitations. For instance, some studies did not fully disclose
    their methods, had small sample sizes, used data based on low survey
    response rates, or did not attempt to correct for or address potential
    biases in their methodology. For studies included in this report, we
    performed an initial in-depth review of the findings and methods, and a
    GAO methodologist performed a second review to confirm our reported
    analysis of the findings. As a result, we determined 31 studies to be
    of sufficient quality and we summarized the findings of these 31
    studies in our report (see table 3).

     Table 3: Studies Included in GAO's Review That Estimate College Student
                                 Food Insecurity
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Year of
                                 Title            Authors        publication
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    1                      Food Insecurity   Chaparro, M. Pia,          2009
                            Prevalence        Sahar S.
                            among College     Zaghloul, Peter
                            Students at the   Holck, Joannie
                            University of     Dobbs
                            Hawai'i at
                            Manoa
    2                      Examining the     Gains, Alisha,             2014
                            Role of           Clifford A.
                            Financial         Robb, Linda L
                            Factors,          Knol, Stephanie
                            Resources and     Sickler
                            Skills in
                            Predicting Food
                            Security Status
                            among College
                            Students
    3                      Prevalence and    Patton-Lopez,              2014
                            Correlates of     Megan M., Daniel
                            Food Insecurity   F. Lopez-
                            among Students    Cevallos, Doris
                            Attending a       I. Cancel-
                            Midsize Rural     Tirado, Leticia
                            University in     Vazquez
                            Oregon
    4                      Hungry to Learn:  Goldrick-Rab,              2015
                            Addressing Food   Sara, Katharine
                            and Housing       Broton, Daniel
                            Insecurity        Eisenberg
                            Among
                            Undergraduates.
    5                      Food Insecurity   Maroto, Maya E.,           2015
                            Among Community   Anastasia
                            College           Snelling, Henry
                            Students:         Linck
                            Prevalence and
                            Association
                            With Grade
                            Point Average
    6                      The Relationship  Silva, Meghan R.,          2015
                            Between Food      Whitney L.
                            Security,         Kleinert, A.
                            Housing           Victoria
                            Stability, and    Sheppard,
                            School            Kathryn A.
                            Performance       Cantrell, Darren
                            Among College     J. Freeman-
                            Students in an    Coppadge, Elena
                            Urban             Tsoy, Tangela
                            University        Roberts, and
                                              Melissa Pearrow
    7                      Factors Related   Bruening, Meg,             2016
                            to the High       Stephanie
                            Rates of Food     Brennhofer,
                            Insecurity        Irene van
                            among Diverse,    Woerden, Michael
                            Urban College     Todd, Melissa
                            Freshmen          Laska
    8                      Prevalence of     Hillmer, Amelia            2016
                            Food Insecurity
                            Among College
                            Students at
                            Southeast
                            Missouri State
                            University
    9                      Predictors of     Mirabitur, Erica,          2016
                            College-Student   Karen E.
                            Food Security     Peterson,
                            and Fruit and     Colleen Rathz,
                            Vegetable         Stacey Matlen,
                            Intake Differ     Nicole Kasper
                            by Housing Type
    10                     The Prevalence    Morris, Loran              2016
                            of Food           Mary, Sylvia
                            Security and      Smith, Jeremy
                            Insecurity        Davis, Dawn
                            Among Illinois    Bloyd Null
                            University
                            Students
    11                     A Household-      Bentley, Bradley           2017
                            Based Food        J.
                            Security Survey
                            of Western New
                            York College
                            Students to
                            Determine Its
                            Prevalence
    12                     Assessing Food    Blagg, Kristin,            2017
                            Insecurity on     Diane Whitmore
                            Campus            Schanzenbach,
                                              Craig Gundersen,
                                              James P. Ziliak
    13                     The Evolution of  Broton, Katharine          2017
                            Poverty in        M.
                            Higher
                            Education:
                            Material
                            Hardship,
                            Academic
                            Success, and
                            Policy
                            Perspectives
    14                     The Relationship  Dudley, Bethany            2017
                            Between Food
                            Insecurity and
                            Academic
                            Performance
                            Among San Jose
                            State
                            University
                            Students
    15                     Hungry and        Goldrick-Rab,              2017
                            Homeless in       Sara, Jed
                            College:          Richardson,
                            Results from a    Anthony
                            National Study    Hernandez
                            of Basic Needs
                            Insecurity in
                            Higher
                            Education
    16                     Fostering         Kinarsky, Alana.           2017
                            Success:          R.
                            Understanding
                            the Experience
                            of Foster Youth
                            Undergraduates
    17                     Food Insecurity   King, Jennifer A.          2017
                            Among College
                            Students:
                            Exploring the
                            Predictors of
                            Food Assistance
                            Resource Use
    18                     Food Insecurity,  Knol, Linda L.,            2017
                            Self-rated        Cliff A., Robb,
                            Health, and       Erin M.McKinley,
                            Obesity among     Mary Wood
                            College
                            Students
    19                     Food Insecurity   Martinez, Suzanna          2017
                            in California's   M., Karen Webb,
                            Public            Edward A.
                            University        Frongillo,
                            System: What      Lorrene D.
                            are the risk      Ritchie
                            factors?
    20                     A High            McArthur, Laura            2017
                            Prevalence of     Helena, Lanae
                            Food Insecurity   Ball, Ariel C.
                            Among             Danek, Donald
                            University        Holbert
                            Students in
                            Appalachia
                            Reflects a Need
                            for Educational
                            Interventions
                            and Policy
                            Advocacy.
    21                     Prevalence and    Miles, Rhen,               2017
                            Predictors of     Bowen McBeath,
                            Social Work       Stephanie
                            Student Food      Brockett, Paul
                            Insecurity        Sorenson
    22                     Student Hunger    Payne-Sturges,             2017
                            on Campus: Food   Devon C.,
                            Insecurity        Allison Tjaden,
                            Among College     Kimberly M,
                            Students and      Caldeira,
                            Implications      Kathryn B.
                            for Academic      Vincent, Amelia
                            Institutions      M. Arria
    23                     Hungry to Learn:  Bruening, Meg,             2018
                            the Prevalence    Irene van
                            and Effects of    Woerden, Michael
                            food Insecurity   Todd, and
                            on Health         Melissa N.
                            Behaviors and     Laska.
                            Outcomes over
                            Time among a
                            Diverse Sample
                            of University
                            Freshmen
    24                     Study of Student  Crutchfield,               2018
                            Basic Needs       Rashida,
                                              Jennifer Maguire
    25                     Why are Hungry    El Zein, Aseel,            2018
                            College           Anne E. Mathews,
                            Students Not      Lisa House, and
                            Seeking Help?     Karla P.
                            Predictors of     Shelnutt.
                            and Barriers to
                            using an on-
                            Campus Food
                            Pantry.
    26                     Food Insecurity   Forman, Michele            2018
                            and Hunger:       R., Lauren D
                            Quiet Public      Mangini, Yong-
                            Health Problems   Quan Dong, Ladia
                            on Campus         M Hernandez,
                                              Karen L
                                              Fingerman
    27                     Still Hungry and  Goldrick-Rab,              2018
                            Homeless in       Sara, Jed
                            College           Richardson, Joel
                                              Schneider,
                                              Anthony
                                              Hernandez Clare
                                              Cady
    28                     Food Insecurity   Hagedorn, Rebecca          2018
                            and Behavioral    L., and Melissa
                            Characteristics   D. Olfert
                            for Academic
                            Success in
                            Young Adults
                            Attending an
                            Appalachian
                            University
    29                     Food Insecurity   Phillips, Erica,           2018
                            and Academic      Anne McDaniel,
                            Disruption        and Alicia
                            among College     Croft.
                            Students.
    30                     Relationship      Wattick, Rachel            2018
                            between Diet      A., Rebecca L.
                            and Mental        Hagedorn, and
                            Health in a       Melissa D.
                            Young Adult       Olfert.
                            Appalachian
                            College
                            Population.
    31                     Experiences With  Wood, J. Luke,             2018
                            ``Acute'' Food    Frank Harris III
                            Insecurity
                            Among College
                            Students
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Source: Studies GAO reviewed. D GAO-19-95.
    Note: We selected studies for inclusion based on the following criteria:
      (1) based on research conducted and published in the United States;
      (2) published after 2007; and (3) contains original, direct estimates
      of food insecurity rates among college students. While we determined
      that these 31 studies were appropriate for our purpose to provide some
      information regarding food insecurity among college students, all of
      the studies have methodological limitations and none provide estimates
      of food insecurity for the college student population in general.

        While these 31 studies are of sufficient quality to provide
    information on what is known about food insecurity among college
    students, the generalizability of their findings require significant
    caveats. Most of the survey results in these studies are not
    generalizable to a population larger than their sample size, meaning
    that the findings apply only to the respondents of the survey. None of
    the studies in our review conducted non-response bias analyses or
    attempted to address potential selection bias in the sample. Despite
    these limitations, the studies collectively offer assessments of food
    insecurity conducted on over 200 campuses in more than 30 states, at
    both 2 and 4 year schools, and all but three of the studies used
    adapted versions of the USDA food insecurity measure.
    NPSAS Data Analysis
        We analyzed data from the Department of Education's (Education)
    National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS). Because no Federal
    datasets contain food insecurity data specifically about college
    students, we chose to analyze NPSAS data for the prevalence of risk
    factors associated with food insecurity.\2\ Additionally, we used some
    summary statistics from frequencies presented in the 2016 NPSAS data
    codebook.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Federal data sets that collect data on food insecurity measure
    food insecurity at a household level, which is limited for estimating
    food insecurity among college students. Likewise, no Federal education
    datasets currently contain food insecurity data for individual
    students. Department of Education officials told us they are planning
    to include a series of questions measuring student food insecurity in
    the next NPSAS data collection in 2020.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        NPSAS data contain nationally representative, detailed demographic
    and financial aid data for college students enrolled in less than 2
    year, 2 year, 4 year, and graduate postsecondary programs. These data
    come from institutional records, government databases, and interviews
    with students. Because the NPSAS data are based on probability samples,
    estimates are calculated using the appropriate sample weights provided
    which reflect the sample design. Each of these samples follows a
    probability procedure based on random selection, and they represent
    only one of a large number of samples that could have been drawn. Since
    each sample could have provided different estimates, we express our
    confidence in the precision of our particular sample's results as a 95
    percent confidence interval. This is the interval that would contain
    the actual population value for 95 percent of the samples we could have
    drawn. Unless otherwise noted, all percentage estimates from the NPSAS
    data analysis have 95 percent confidence intervals within plus or minus
    5 percentage points of the percent estimate, and other numerical
    estimates have confidence intervals within plus or minus 5 percent of
    the estimate itself. We compared 95 percent confidence intervals to
    identify statistically significant differences between specific
    estimates and the comparison groups. The information provided in the
    NPSAS data, particularly those from the interview portion of the study,
    are self-reported and not all of the data are based on Federal
    determinations or cross-verified with outside sources. For example,
    students self-report their disability status, their hours worked, and
    so on. Such self-reported data are subject to several sources of
    nonsampling error, including the inability to obtain information about
    all sample cases; difficulties of definition; differences in the
    interpretation of questions; respondents' inability or unwillingness to
    provide correct information; and errors made in collecting, recording,
    coding, and processing data. These nonsampling errors can influence the
    accuracy of information presented in the report, although the magnitude
    of their effect is not known.
    Identification of Risk Factors for Food Insecurity
        In order to identify risk factors associated with food insecurity
    among college students, we reviewed published articles and reports on
    the topic of food insecurity and interviewed researchers, college and
    state officials, and officials at relevant policy organizations. We
    present the list of risk factors for food insecurity we considered in
    table 4. Not all of the risk factors we identified have a corresponding
    NPSAS variable. For example, NPSAS does not ask respondents about unmet
    medical needs or childhood food insecurity. Additionally some of the
    risk factors overlapped and were thus not included in our analysis. For
    example, the NPSAS dataset contains multiple variables pertaining to
    student and student household income, such as household income,
    financial aid, and receipt of public benefits. Many indicators of low-
    income status likely overlap (e.g., being eligible for a Pell Grant and
    receiving other financial aid), and many students who have one
    indicator will likely have others.

     Table 4: Risk Factors Identified by GAO Associated with Food Insecurity
                             Among College Students
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Risk factor selected for GAO                     Description
     analysis
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Disability                           Several studies and an expert in
                                          one interview mentioned having a
                                          disability as a correlate for food
                                          insecurity; also it is one of the
                                          exemptions for Supplemental
                                          Nutrition Assistance Program
                                          (SNAP) eligibility. Disability is
                                          a stressor that may partially
                                          overlap with the low-income
                                          variable, but adds a unique
                                          dimension of risk for food
                                          insecurity.
    First-generation student             Mentioned in several studies as a
                                          correlate of food insecurity; may
                                          partially overlap with the low-
                                          income variable.
    Former foster youth                  Former foster youth are more likely
                                          to be low income, housing
                                          insecure, and food-insecure than
                                          other types of students.
    Homelessness/housing insecurity      Several studies mention
                                          homelessness/housing insecurity as
                                          a strong correlate of food
                                          insecurity. Particularly in high-
                                          cost areas, this may be an
                                          indicator of food insecurity risk
                                          even among students who are not
                                          technically low income.
    Low income                           Multiple studies and experts in
                                          multiple interviews mention that
                                          having a low income is associated
                                          with an increased risk of food
                                          insecurity.
    Single parent status                 Single parent status likely
                                          overlaps with low-income status to
                                          some degree; it is also indicative
                                          of a unique stressor that may
                                          increase food insecurity risk (it
                                          is also one of the student
                                          exemptions for SNAP eligibility).
    Receiving SNAP                       Receipt of SNAP benefits is
                                          positively associated with food
                                          insecurity. While receiving SNAP
                                          mitigates food insecurity, SNAP
                                          recipients still have higher food
                                          insecurity rates than the general
                                          population.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Risk factors considered but not                Reason excluded
     included in analysis
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    (Lack) of access to credit card      No corresponding National
                                          Postsecondary Student Aid Study
                                          (NPSAS) variable.
    Age or year in school                Some studies identify different
                                          years in school or different age
                                          groups as having different risks
                                          for food insecurity, but which
                                          year is at higher risk varies from
                                          study to study.
    Exogenous shock (e.g., death of      No corresponding NPSAS variable.
     family member, income loss,
     natural disaster, etc.)
    Familial financial support/expected  Experts mentioned lack of family
     family contribution                  financial support as a strong
                                          correlate of food insecurity and a
                                          proxy for financial need. It is
                                          also indicative of the level of
                                          support a student's family can
                                          provide to assist a student
                                          experiencing food insecurity.
                                          However, this factor is likely
                                          highly correlated with low-income
                                          status.
    Food prep skills/other skills        No corresponding NPSAS variable
    Household receipt of Free and        Research has found that household
     Reduced Price Lunch in High School   receipt of Free or Reduced Price
                                          Lunch is positively associated
                                          with food insecurity. However,
                                          this variable broadly overlaps
                                          with low-income status.
    Living arrangements, such as on- or  This factor may be correlated with
     off-campus housing and whether       food insecurity and is potentially
     food provision is included in on-    related to homelessness/housing
     campus housing                       insecurity; however, homelessness
                                          is a stronger correlate/indicator
                                          of food insecurity risk.
    Hours worked per week                Two studies found that the number
                                          of hours worked per week is
                                          positively correlated with food
                                          insecurity. However, working a
                                          greater number of hours while in
                                          college is likely correlated with
                                          having a low-income.
    Independent student status           Independent student status may be a
                                          proxy for having a low income or
                                          lacking family resources. Other
                                          variables may more directly
                                          indicate low-income status.
    Loan use                             May be a proxy for having a low
                                          income, but is also very broad as
                                          many non-low-income students also
                                          take out student loans.
    Race/Ethnicity                       Several studies have found that non-
                                          whites and certain ethnicities
                                          have higher risk of food
                                          insecurity. Race is generally
                                          considered a marker of other
                                          underlying risk factors more
                                          strongly associated with food
                                          insecurity, including being low-
                                          income. Because of this, we did
                                          not include race as a risk factor
                                          in our analysis.
    Receipt of or eligibility for Pell   Several studies have found that
     Grants or financial aid broadly      unmet financial need and Pell
     speaking                             Grant receipt are both indicators
                                          of overall need and are positively
                                          associated with food insecurity.
                                          The Federal Government determines
                                          Pell Grant eligibility based on
                                          income as reported on the Free
                                          Application for Federal Student
                                          Aid (FAFSA). However, this risk
                                          factor largely overlaps with
                                          having a low income.
    Sex/Gender                           The research results are unclear on
                                          the relationship between gender
                                          and food insecurity.
    Type of institution attended (2      Several studies have found that
     year vs. 4 year, for-profit,         community and vocational and
     etc.).                               technical college students have
                                          higher food insecurity rates than
                                          students at 4 year colleges. We
                                          report the results of our analysis
                                          by college type, but do not
                                          consider college type a risk
                                          factor itself.
    Undocumented/international students  No corresponding NPSAS variable for
                                          undocumented students, and few
                                          variables available for documented
                                          international students.
    Unmet medical needs                  No corresponding NPSAS variable.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Source: GAO analysis. D GAO-19-95.
    Notes: GAO compiled this list of risk factors associated with food
      insecurity among college students based on whether the risk factor was
      mentioned in research or mentioned during interviews with researchers,
      college officials, state and Federal officials, and relevant policy
      organizations.

        Although this is not an exhaustive list of risk factors,
    individuals who experience one of the following seven characteristics
    may be at risk of food insecurity: being disabled, homeless or housing
    insecure, being a former foster youth, receiving SNAP benefits, being a
    single parent, and being the first-generation in a student's family to
    attend college.\3\ Table 5 shows how we compared these risk factors
    with corresponding variables from the 2016 NPSAS data.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Participation in SNAP is correlated with both having a low-
    income and with food insecurity; studies show SNAP recipients are more
    food-insecure than the general population even though they receive SNAP
    benefits. This is partially because food-insecure people choose to
    participate in SNAP and partially because receiving SNAP does not
    completely ameliorate food insecurity. According to research by USDA,
    participating in SNAP for 6 months was associated with a decrease in
    food insecurity of 12.7 percentage points. See James Mabli, Jim Ohls,
    Lisa Dragoset, Laura Castner, and Betsy Santos, Measuring the Effect of
    Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Participation on Food
    Security, a report prepared by Mathematica Policy Research at the
    request of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition
    Service (Washington, D.C.: August 2013).

     Table 5. Selected Risk Factors and Corresponding Variables in the 2016
                National Postsecondary Student Aid Study Data Set
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Risk factor        NPSAS variable name           Description
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Disability a          DISABIL2                Indicates student has some
                                                   type of disability or
                                                   condition.
    Homeless/housing      HOMELESS2               Includes some students who
     insecure                                      were determined by a
                                                   professional to be
                                                   homeless (via the Free
                                                   Application for Federal
                                                   Student Aid or FAFSA),
                                                   but predominantly
                                                   measures student-
                                                   determined ``risk of
                                                   homelessness.'' This is
                                                   not a direct measure of
                                                   homelessness.
    Former foster youth   ORPHAN2                 Indicates student is an
                                                   orphan, ward of court,
                                                   emancipated minor, or in
                                                   legal guardianship.
    Receiving SNAP b      FEDBENA                 Indicates whether any
                                                   member of the student's
                                                   household received Food
                                                   Stamp (SNAP) Benefits
                                                   during the 2013 or 2014
                                                   calendar year.
    Single parent status  SINGLPAR                Identifies independent
                                                   students who were single
                                                   parents/caretakers during
                                                   the 2015-2016 academic
                                                   year.
    Low-Income            PCTPOV                  Indicates total 2014
                                                   income as a percentage of
                                                   the Federal poverty level
                                                   thresholds for 2014. For
                                                   our purposes, low income
                                                   is defined as having a
                                                   household income level at
                                                   or below 130 percent of
                                                   the Federal poverty
                                                   level.
    First generation      PAREDUC                 Indicates the highest
     student                                       level of education
                                                   achieved by a parent,
                                                   stepparent, or guardian
                                                   of the student. Per
                                                   previous Department of
                                                   Education studies, we
                                                   define first generation
                                                   as college students whose
                                                   parents' maximum
                                                   educational attainment
                                                   was a high school diploma
                                                   or less. Note that
                                                   students who did not know
                                                   their parent's highest
                                                   education were not
                                                   counted as first
                                                   generation students.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Source: GAO analysis. D GAO-19-95.
    a The data are self-reported. The student may not be eligible for or
      receiving Federal disability benefits.
    b The data are reported by the student and their family on the FAFSA or
      during the student interview. National level, individual SNAP
      enrollment data are not available to verify this variable, as states
      provide aggregate statistics to FNS.

        Because our analysis does not include some of the risk factors for
    food insecurity listed in table 4, our findings may underestimate the
    number of college students who have a risk factor for food insecurity.
    For example, we heard in some of our interviews with researchers and in
    our discussions with students that being an undocumented or an
    international student was a risk factor for food insecurity. Such
    students are generally ineligible for Federal financial aid and are
    restricted in the type of other Federal aid they can receive.
    Undocumented students are also more likely than other students to be
    poor. However, NPSAS does not contain detailed data about undocumented
    or international students, so we could not include this risk factor for
    food insecurity in our analysis. The risk factors for food insecurity
    we included in our analysis may also be correlated with one another and
    can co-occur. For example, youth who were formerly in foster care are
    more likely than other youth to be low-income.\4\ Indeed, the
    prevalence of additional risk factors for food insecurity is higher
    among low-income than wealthier students. We did not analyze the extent
    to which some risk factors are more strongly associated with food
    insecurity than others or attempt to rank or weight the relative
    importance of risk factors.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Most foster and homeless youth have incomes within the lowest
    income quartile of all college-enrolled youth. See GAO, Higher
    Education: Actions Needed to Improve Access to Federal Financial
    Assistance for Homeless and Foster Youth, GAO-16-343 (http://
    www.gao.gov/products/GAO-16-343) (Washington, D.C.: May 19, 2016).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Student SNAP Eligibility
        To calculate potential student SNAP eligibility, we first
    calculated the number of students who might qualify for SNAP based upon
    having a household income at or below 130 percent of the Federal
    poverty line, which is the standard income requirement for households
    that do not include a member who is 60 years of age or older or
    disabled to qualify for SNAP benefits. Next, we analyzed NPSAS
    variables to identify those that corresponded with SNAP student
    eligibility rules. We deemed all students who met the income
    requirements, were enrolled in school at least half time, and met one
    of the student eligibility exemptions we were able to identify in the
    data as potentially eligible for SNAP.
        However, our analysis has limitations and does not precisely
    identify all students who are SNAP eligible. The 2016 NPSAS data set
    contains several variables that match up closely with certain student
    eligibility exemptions. For example, the exemptions related to age,
    having young dependents, working 20 hours per week, and receiving
    certain Federal benefits have corresponding NPSAS variables (see table
    6). For two of the exemptions, we used variables from the NPSAS data
    set that do not perfectly correspond to the statute but were the
    closest available proxies in the data. For the eligibility exemption
    that covers parents caring for a child 6-11 years old who are unable to
    obtain childcare to attend school and work, we identified students who
    have a child 6-11 years old and indicate they have no paid childcare.
    However, some individuals may have unpaid childcare, such as family
    members, and be able to work and attend school despite not having paid
    childcare, meaning they would not meet this SNAP student eligibility
    exemption. For the disability exemption, we used the NPSAS variable
    based on an interview question that asks students if they have a mental
    or physical disability. However, because of different definitions, the
    NPSAS disability variable may include students with disabilities who
    would not qualify for the SNAP student exemption related to disability.
    Specifically, to qualify for this SNAP student exemption, the student
    must not be ``physically or mentally fit,'', while the NPSAS interview
    question asks students if they have some type of disability or
    condition, including a long-lasting condition such as serious
    difficulty hearing; blindness or serious difficulty seeing; difficulty
    concentrating, remembering or making decisions, a serious learning
    disability, depression, or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder; or
    serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs. As a result, we may
    overestimate the number of students who would qualify for the student
    exemption related to having a disability or caring for a child age 6-
    11. Last, NPSAS does not contain a variable to capture the student
    eligibility exemption related to enrollment in certain programs aimed
    at employment, such as the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act or
    Temporary Assistance for Needy Families employment and training
    programs. Therefore, we could not identify any students who met this
    eligibility exemption for SNAP and may have therefore underestimated
    the number of students who were potentially eligible for SNAP.

      Table 6: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Eligibility
     Exemptions for College Students and Corresponding Variables in the 2016
                National Postsecondary Student Aid Study Data Set
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      College student SNAP                          Variable description and
           exemption            NPSAS  variable           limitations
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Under age 18 or age 50   AGE                   Provides the student's
     or older                                       age as of 12/31/2015.
    Parent caring for a      DEPCHILD, DEPYNG      DEPCHILD identifies
     child under age 6                              students who dependents
                                                    who are children; DEPYNG
                                                    provides the age of the
                                                    student's youngest child
                                                    during the 2015-16
                                                    academic year.
    Parent caring for a      DEPCHILD, DEPYNG,     DEPCARE indicates whether
     child 6-11 years old     DEPCARE               the student had
     who is unable to                               dependent children in
     obtain child care to                           paid childcare during
     attend school and work                         the 2015-16 academic
                                                    year. Students who have
                                                    a child between 6 and 11
                                                    and indicate they do not
                                                    have paid childcare were
                                                    identified as meeting
                                                    this condition. However,
                                                    some individuals may
                                                    have unpaid childcare
                                                    that allows them to work
                                                    and attend school, which
                                                    these variables do not
                                                    capture.
    Single parent caring     SINGLPAR, DEPYNG,     The student's single
     for a child under 12     ATTEND2               parent status, age of
     years old and enrolled                         their youngest child,
     full-time                                      and whether they are
                                                    enrolled full time.
    Working a minimum of 20  JOBHOUR               Based on the following
     hours per week                                 student interview
                                                    question asked of each
                                                    job the student has held
                                                    while enrolled, ``How
                                                    many hours per week have
                                                    you usually worked [for
                                                    this employer] while you
                                                    have attended school?''
                                                    Excludes work study
                                                    hours.
    Receiving any Federal    TFEDWRK               Total amount of Federal
     Work-Study funds                               work study awarded for
                                                    the 2015-2016 academic
                                                    year.
    Receiving Temporary      FEDBEND               Whether any member of the
     Assistance for Needy                           student's household
     Families (TANF)                                received Temporary Aid
     benefits                                       for Needy Families
                                                    (TANF) benefits during
                                                    the 2013 or 2014
                                                    calendar year.
    Not physically or        DISABIL2              Student has self-reported
     mentally fit (e.g.,                            some type of disability
     have a disability)                             or condition; not based
                                                    on a Federal disability
                                                    determination.
    Enrolled in certain      N/A                   No corresponding NPSAS
     programs aimed at                              Variables
     employment, including
     TANF work programs,
     Workforce Innovation
     and Opportunity Act
     Title I programs, and
     others
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Source: GAO analysis and 2016 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study
      Documentation. D GAO-19-95.

        Additionally, SNAP eligibility for college students depends not
    only on income and meeting a student exemption, but also on other
    determinations such as the level of the individual's financial assets,
    including savings and any state policy waivers that may apply to the
    individual's eligibility. Given that our analysis relied on self-
    reported information, and did not capture all aspects of student SNAP
    eligibility, we did not make any legal determinations about whether
    individuals were eligible for SNAP, and therefore our analysis can be
    characterized as providing only a rough estimate of those students who
    may potentially be eligible for SNAP benefits.
    State Site Visits
        To understand how selected colleges address student food
    insecurity, we conducted four state site visits (California, Kentucky,
    Massachusetts, and Michigan). We selected these states based on the
    following criteria:

       Mentioned in interviews with researchers or government
            officials as being a state that is: actively addressing college
            food insecurity, or has at least one public college that is
            taking action to address food insecurity among college students
            (number of mentions).

       School or state program on hunger or food insecurity
            featured in research papers or policy briefs (number of
            mentions).

       FNS data on food insecurity rates in the state, to indicate
            whether food insecurity among college students might also be a
            problem (rank by state).

       FNS data on SNAP enrollment and participation in the state,
            to indicate the level of SNAP usage in the state (rank by
            state).

       FNS information regarding the number of SNAP waivers a state
            has received, as a proxy for SNAP policy activity in the state
            (rank by state).

        We also sought geographic diversity in our site visit states. To
    achieve this, we created summary rank ordering of states based upon our
    criteria, then, from those states that ranked in the top 15, we
    selected one state from the Northeast, South, Midwest, and West Census
    regions. Some of our criteria were purely qualitative in nature, such
    as information from interviews, research papers, and policy briefs
    regarding states and colleges with promising practices. Our site visit
    selection focused specifically on states and colleges with documented
    activity addressing college student food insecurity, and is therefore
    biased toward those that had taken action to address college student
    food insecurity. Our selection strategy did not capture situations
    where there was high food insecurity among students but the college or
    state was taking no action to address it, nor did we seek to identify
    or visit locations where food insecurity had not been identified as a
    problem. In addition to our site visits, we conducted interviews with
    officials from one college in Texas and one college in Ohio to learn
    about specific campus food insecurity initiatives in these states.
        In each site visit state, we visited several colleges that were
    taking action to address food insecurity among their student
    populations, selected based on recommendations from researchers and
    college officials. We also considered geographic proximity when
    selecting colleges to visit. Overall, we spoke with officials
    representing 14 2 and 4 year public colleges (12 in-person and two
    telephone interviews).\5\ In each of our site visit states, we visited
    at least one large public university and one community college. See
    table 7 for a list of the 2 and 4 year colleges we interviewed in each
    state.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ In addition, we met with one private college during the course
    of our study. We met with this 4 year private work college to learn
    about their unique approach to meeting their students' basic needs.
    This college is not included in our summary of actions taken by
    colleges because it fell outside of our report's focus on public 2 and
    4 year colleges.

     Table 7: List of 2 and 4 year Selected Colleges that GAO Contacted, by
                                      State
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              2 year colleges            4 year colleges
           State                interviewed                interviewed
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    California           Skyline College            California State
                                                     University, Sacramento
                                                    University of
                                                     California, Berkeley
    Kentucky             Maysville Community and    Eastern Kentucky
                          Technical College          University
                                                    University of Kentucky
    Massachusetts        Bunker Hill Community      University of
                          College                    Massachusetts, Boston
    Michigan             Mott Community College     Eastern Michigan
                         Washtenaw Community         University
                          College                   University of Michigan,
                                                     Dearborn
    Ohio                 Cuyahoga Community
                          College
    Texas                Amarillo College
                        ----------------------------------------------------
      Total              7                          7
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Source: GAO. D GAO-19-95.

        At colleges, we asked members of the leadership team, financial aid
    officers, student affairs administrators, and other staff members
    questions about how they recognize, measure, and address college
    student food insecurity. We also conducted discussion groups with
    students at seven colleges we visited and asked about their experiences
    with food insecurity and Federal assistance programs, such as SNAP.
    Students were invited by college officials to participate in these
    meetings. In each state we visited, we also met with officials from the
    state agencies that administer SNAP and any state governmental
    agencies, such as those overseeing higher education or involved in
    addressing food insecurity among college students. Lastly, in each site
    visit state, we identified and interviewed staff members at policy
    organizations, such as legal policy institutes or hunger advocacy
    groups, involved in efforts to address food insecurity among college
    students.
    Assessing Federal Efforts to Address Food Insecurity
        We assessed the extent to which Federal programs assist college
    students experiencing food insecurity by reviewing relevant Federal
    laws, regulations, and agency guidance and program documents related to
    specific SNAP requirements for college students and we interviewed FNS
    national office officials, including representatives of the Divisions
    of SNAP Program Development, Employment and Training, and Retailer
    Policy. We also interviewed FNS regional office officials in four of
    the seven FNS regions about their experiences working with the FNS
    national office and with state SNAP agencies in their regions to
    address college student food insecurity and access to SNAP.
        We also sent an email to all 51 state SNAP agency directors (all 50
    states plus the District of Columbia) to ask about any actions their
    state has taken to address college student food insecurity. We received
    responses from 50 of the 51 state SNAP agencies, for a 98 percent
    response rate.\6\ This email inquiry was conducted in March and April
    2018 and may not include all state actions that have occurred since
    April 2018.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ The Michigan State SNAP agency did not respond to our email.
    However, we interviewed the Michigan state SNAP agency director during
    the course of our review and incorporated the state's actions into our
    report, as appropriate.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        We conducted in-depth interviews with officials at five state SNAP
    agencies and asked about any specific policies or actions their
    agencies have taken to address college student food insecurity or to
    assist potentially eligible college students to access SNAP. We
    conducted these interviews in person with state SNAP agencies during
    our four state site visits, and interviewed the Washington state SNAP
    agency by phone.\7\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ We interviewed the Washington State SNAP agency director
    because of Washington's extensive SNAP Employment & Training Program
    partnerships with colleges.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        We conducted this performance audit from July 2017 to December 2018
    in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
    Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
    sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
    findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that
    the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
    conclusions based on our audit objectives.
    Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
    GAO Contact
        Kathryn Larin, (202) 512-7215 or larink@gao.gov.
    Staff Acknowledgments
        In addition to the contact named above, Michelle L. St. Pierre
    (Assistant Director), Nora Boretti (Analyst-In-Charge), Jessica K.
    Rider, and Stephen C. Yoder made significant contributions to this
    report. Also contributing to this report were Holly A. Dye, Barbara J.
    El Osta, Sarah C. Gilliland, Alison E. Grantham, Gina M. Hoover, Saida
    B. Hussain, Sheila R. McCoy, John W. Mingus, Jr., Mimi Nguyen, Monica
    P. Savoy, Benjamin A. Sinoff, Almeta Spencer, Rachel R. Stoiko, Elaine
    L. Vaurio, and David A. Watsula.
    GAO's Mission
        The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and
    investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
    its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
    and accountability of the Federal Government for the American people.
    GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates Federal programs and
    policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
    to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
    decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
    values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
    Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
        The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
    cost is through GAO's website (https://www.gao.gov). Each weekday
    afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony,
    and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted
    products, go to https://www.gao.gov and select ``E-mail Updates.''
    Order by Phone
        The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO's actual cost of
    production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
    publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black
    and white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO's website,
    https://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm.
        Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077,
    or TDD (202) 512-2537.
        Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
    MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
    information.
    Connect with GAO
        Contact:

              Website: https://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
              Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7700
    Congressional Relations
        Orice Williams Brown, Managing Director, WilliamsO@gao.gov, (202)
    512-4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room
    7125, Washington, D.C. 20548
    Public Affairs
        Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800
    U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
    Washington, D.C. 20548
    Strategic Planning and External Liaison
        James-Christian Blockwood, Managing Director, spel@gao.gov, (202)
    512-4707 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room
    7814, Washington, D.C. 20548

                                      [all]