[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 [email protected].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \[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 [email protected]. 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 [email protected].
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, [email protected], (202) 
512-4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 
7125, Washington, D.C. 20548
Public Affairs
    Chuck Young, Managing Director, [email protected], (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, [email protected], (202) 
512-4707 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 
7814, Washington, D.C. 20548

                                  [all]