    [House Hearing, 118 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                      INNOVATION, EMPLOYMENT, INTEGRITY,
                         AND HEALTH: OPPORTUNITIES FOR
                           MODERNIZATION IN TITLE IV

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                            COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION
                                   __________

                                  JUNE 7, 2023
                                   __________

                               Serial No. 118-14

                     [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

                                   __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    53-146 PDF                WASHINGTON : 2023

                            COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE

                     GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania, Chairman

    FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma             DAVID SCOTT, Georgia, Ranking
    AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia, Vice          Minority Member
    Chairman                             JIM COSTA, California
    ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas  JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts
    SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee          ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina
    DOUG LaMALFA, California             ABIGAIL DAVIS SPANBERGER, Virginia
    DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina         JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut
    TRENT KELLY, Mississippi             SHONTEL M. BROWN, Ohio
    DON BACON, Nebraska                  SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas
    MIKE BOST, Illinois                  ELISSA SLOTKIN, Michigan
    DUSTY JOHNSON, South Dakota          YADIRA CARAVEO, Colorado
    JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana              ANDREA SALINAS, Oregon
    TRACEY MANN, Kansas                  MARIE GLUESENKAMP PEREZ,
    RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa                 Washington
    MARY E. MILLER, Illinois             DONALD G. DAVIS, North Carolina,
    BARRY MOORE, Alabama                 Vice Ranking Minority Member
    KAT CAMMACK, Florida                 JILL N. TOKUDA, Hawaii
    BRAD FINSTAD, Minnesota              NIKKI BUDZINSKI, Illinois
    JOHN W. ROSE, Tennessee              ERIC SORENSEN, Illinois
    RONNY JACKSON, Texas                 GABE VASQUEZ, New Mexico
    MARCUS J. MOLINARO, New York         JASMINE CROCKETT, Texas
    MONICA De La CRUZ, Texas             JONATHAN L. JACKSON, Illinois
    NICHOLAS A. LANGWORTHY, New York     GREG CASAR, Texas
    JOHN S. DUARTE, California           CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
    ZACHARY NUNN, Iowa                   SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California
    MARK ALFORD, Missouri                ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota
    DERRICK VAN ORDEN, Wisconsin         DARREN SOTO, Florida
    LORI CHAVEZ-DeREMER, Oregon          SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia
    MAX L. MILLER, Ohio

                                     ______

                         Parish Braden, Staff Director

                     Anne Simmons, Minority Staff Director

                                      (ii)

                                 C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Carbajal, Hon. Salud O., a Representative in Congress from
      California; on behalf of Stephanie Johnson, RDN, Vice
      President, Government Relations, National Grocers Association,
      submitted letter...............................................   230
    Davis, Hon. Donald G., a Representative in Congress from North
      Carolina; on behalf of MAZON: A Jewish Response to Hunger,
      submitted statement............................................   227
    DesJarlais, Hon. Scott, a Representative in Congress from
      Tennessee, submitted website snapshot..........................   196
    McGovern, Hon. James P. a Representative in Congress from
      Massachusetts:
        Submitted news release.......................................   199
        Submitted resolution.........................................   201
    Salinas, Hon. Andrea, a Representative in Congress from Oregon;
      on behalf of Marc Egan, Director of Government Relations,
      National Education Association, submitted letter...............   226
    Scott, Hon. David, a Representative in Congress from Georgia,
      opening statement..............................................     4
        Submitted letters on behalf of:
            Pham, Hoa, Deputy Secretary, Office of Income
              Maintenance, Pennsylvania Department of Human Services.   197
            Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, et al................   198
    Spanberger, Hon. Abigail Davis, a Representative in Congress from
      Virginia:
        Submitted report.............................................   203
        Submitted statute excerpt....................................   219
    Thompson, Hon. Glenn, a Representative in Congress from
      Pennsylvania, opening statement................................     1
        Prepared statement...........................................     3
        Submitted articles...........................................   115
        Submitted Federal Register Rule..............................   149
        Submitted press release......................................   166
        Submitted reports............................................   168

                                   Witnesses

    Brown, Tikki, Assistant Commissioner, Children and Family
      Services Administration, Minnesota Department of Human
      Services, Minneapolis, MN......................................     6
        Prepared statement...........................................     7
        Submitted question...........................................   247
    Stover, Ph.D., Patrick J., Director, Institute for Advancing
      Health Through Agriculture, Texas A&M University, College
      Station, TX....................................................    13
        Prepared statement...........................................    15
        Supplementary material.......................................   232
        Submitted questions..........................................   248
    Hodel, Eric E., Chief Executive Officer, Midwest Food Bank,
      Normal, IL.....................................................    20
        Prepared statement...........................................    22
    Royal, Dawn, Member, Board of Directors and past President,
      United Council on Welfare Fraud, Greybull, WY..................    23
        Prepared statement...........................................    24
        Supplementary material.......................................   232
    Rachidi, Ph.D., Angela K., Research Fellow in Poverty Studies,
      American Enterprise Institute, Washington, D.C.................    37
        Prepared statement...........................................    39
        Submitted question...........................................   251

                      INNOVATION, EMPLOYMENT, INTEGRITY,
                         AND HEALTH: OPPORTUNITIES FOR
                           MODERNIZATION IN TITLE IV

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, JUNE 7, 2023

                              House of Representatives,
                                      Committee on Agriculture,
                                                       Washington, D.C.
        The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in Room
    1300 of the Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Glenn
    Thompson [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
        Members present: Representatives Thompson, Austin Scott of
    Georgia, DesJarlais, LaMalfa, Rouzer, Bacon, Bost, Johnson,
    Baird, Mann, Feenstra, Miller of Illinois, Moore, Finstad,
    Rose, Jackson of Texas, Molinaro, De La Cruz, Langworthy,
    Duarte, Nunn, Alford, Van Orden, Chavez-DeRemer, Miller of
    Ohio, David Scott of Georgia, Costa, McGovern, Adams,
    Spanberger, Hayes, Brown, Davids of Kansas, Slotkin, Caraveo,
    Salinas, Perez, Davis of North Carolina, Tokuda, Budzinski,
    Sorensen, Vasquez, Crockett, Jackson of Illinois, Casar,
    Pingree, Carbajal, Soto, and Bishop.
        Staff present: Caleb Crosswhite, Halee Fisher, Jennifer
    Tiller, Erin Wilson, John Konya, Kate Fink, Amar Nair, Ashley
    Smith, Michael Stein, Katherine Stewart, Elaine Zhang, and Dana
    Sandman.

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

        The Chairman. Okay, good morning, everyone. Good morning,
    and welcome to this hearing. Before I gavel in, I ask a good
    friend and colleague from North Carolina, if he would just
    offer a blessing over our proceedings today, and then we will
    gavel in after that. Mr. Davis?
        Mr. Davis of North Carolina. Thank you so much, Mr.
    Chairman. Let us pray. O Holy One, we come before you now, and
    we are just so thankful for this opportunity for this day. We
    are thankful for the opportunity to talk about agriculture. As
    we prepare to proceed today, be with our Chairman, our Ranking
    Member, all of the Committee Members, our witnesses, and all
    those gathered today. Allow us insight into your wisdom. It is
    these things we pray, amen.
        The Chairman. Amen. Thank you, sir. The Committee will come
    to order. Welcome, and thank you for joining today's hearing
    entitled, Innovation, Employment, Integrity, and Health:
    Opportunities for Modernization in Title IV. After brief
    opening remarks, Members will receive testimony from our
    witnesses today, and then the hearing will be open to
    questions.
        Good morning once again, and welcome to this morning's
    hearing on the nutrition title of the farm bill, and thank you
    to our witnesses for sharing their time, their expertise, and
    their vision.
        Last week the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or
    SNAP, became a significant focus of the debt ceiling
    negotiations, which laid bare the strong emotions and opinions
    across the political spectrum. But, when one in four Americans
    participate in at least one of the U.S. Department of
    Agriculture's 15 food and nutrition assistant programs over the
    course of a typical year, it is time to redefine success.
        Now, I believe we can all agree, albeit through different
    lenses, there exists an opportunity to advance meaningful
    legislation that moves people forward while meeting their
    dietary and their financial needs. However, I am firm in my
    belief that smart policies do not equal indiscriminate
    expansion of these programs. I have also been involved in
    shaping Federal domestic nutrition policy through my work on
    the House Committee on Agriculture and the Committee on
    Education and the Workforce. Now, I value these programs,
    advocate for them, and understand there is room for
    improvement. My goal is preservation for those truly in need,
    and recognize that sometimes our neighbors in need require a
    helping hand. With the farm bill set to expire, we as
    policymakers can build on the success of the 2018 Farm Bill,
    and find opportunities to foster self-sufficiency, promote
    health, explore innovation, and ensure taxpayer resources are
    used most effectively.
        First, we must continuously explore how to serve eligible
    recipients through innovation and flexibility. If the pandemic
    has taught us one thing, it is there is no one way to serve
    families in need. Midwest Food Bank has found a way to immerse
    itself deep into Appalachia, and I look forward to hearing more
    about how they, and we, can meet people more efficiently where
    they are, whether in urban or rural communities.
        Second, we must think about the best ways to guide
    recipients to independence through employment, and the role
    that career and technical education plays in that transition.
    Let us move from states going out of their way to keep
    employable individuals idle and disengaged, and spend more time
    fostering connections with employers and education providers.
    Dr. Rachidi has studied this extensively for decades, and her
    testimony is integral to how we should think about an
    expectation of productivity, and its outcomes on health and
    communities.
        As an aside, in talking to organizations that provide case
    management, placement, and retention services, I am encouraged
    to hear clients over the age of 50 report more employment than
    those under 50, report incomes on an average of $500 more per
    month than their younger peers, and hold employment longer, as
    ``older Americans'' can still contribute to the labor force and
    our communities, and should not be thought of as
    ``incapacible'', or incapable, or hopeless.
        Third, we cannot deny program integrity has been
    compromised. As policymakers at the Federal level, we must
    ensure USDA returns and--to and maintains the virtues of our
    domestic nutrition safety net, but our constituents also have a
    role here. From maintaining vigilance at checkout to lessen the
    chances of skimming, to small businesses taking a chance on a
    recipient, we can all come together to restore and sustain
    accountability to the taxpayers footing the 10 year, $1.2
    trillion cost of these programs. The United Council on Welfare
    Fraud provides compelling reasons for these reforms, and more.
        And last, and perhaps most importantly, the promotion of
    healthy eating. Employment, healthcare costs, military
    readiness, education, and general longevity highly depend on
    the foods that we consume. With the right resources, research,
    modernized programming, and technology, and appropriate and
    effective Federal dietary policy, USDA, states, and local
    communities are uniquely positioned to improve the nutrition of
    millions of households. Dr. Stover will share his experiences,
    but most importantly, his vision to bring about a healthier
    America.
        The nutrition program in the farm bill shows the world how
    we as a nation take care of one another. And if we can put
    politics aside to have honest dialogue, promote pragmatic
    policymaking, and commit to good governance, we can move
    mountains for those in need.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Thompson follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Hon. Glenn Thompson, a Representative in Congress
                               from Pennsylvania
        Good morning, and welcome to this morning's hearing on the
    nutrition title of the farm bill.
        Thank you to our witnesses for sharing their time, expertise, and
    vision.
        Last week, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP,
    became a significant focus of the debt ceiling negotiations, which laid
    bare the strong emotions and opinions across the political spectrum.
    But when one in four Americans participate in at least one of the U.S.
    Department of Agriculture's 15 food and nutrition assistance programs
    over the course of a typical year, it is time to redefine success.
        I believe we can all agree, albeit through different lenses, there
    exists an opportunity to advance meaningful legislation that moves
    people forward while meeting their dietary and financial needs.
        However, I am firm in my belief that smart policies do not equal
    indiscriminate expansion of these programs. I've long been involved in
    shaping Federal domestic nutrition policy through my work on the House
    Committee on Agriculture and the Committee on Education and the
    Workforce. I value these programs, advocate for them, and understand
    there is room for improvement.
        My goal is preservation for those truly in need, a recognition that
    sometimes our neighbors in need require a helping hand.
        With the farm bill set to expire, we as policymakers can build on
    the success of the 2018 Farm Bill, and find opportunities to foster
    self-sufficiency, promote health, explore innovation, and ensure
    taxpayer resources are used most effectively.
        First, we must continuously explore how to serve eligible
    recipients through innovation and flexibility. If the pandemic has
    taught us one thing, it is there is no one way to serve families in
    need. Midwest Food Bank has found a way to immerse itself deep into
    Appalachia, and I look forward to hearing more about how they--and we--
    can meet people more efficiently where they are, whether in urban or
    rural communities.
        Second, we must think about the best ways to guide recipients to
    independence through employment, and the role career and technical
    education plays in that transition. Let's move from states going out of
    their way to keep employable individuals idle and disengaged, and spend
    more time fostering connections with employers and education providers.
    Dr. Rachidi has studied this extensively for decades, and her testimony
    is integral to how we should think about an expectation of productivity
    and its outcomes on health and communities.
        As an aside, in talking to organizations that provide case
    management, placement, and retention services, I am encouraged to hear
    clients over the age of 50 report more employment than those under 50,
    report incomes on average of $500 more per month than their younger
    peers, and hold employment longer. Us `older Americans' can still
    contribute to the labor force and our communities and should not be
    thought of as incapable or hopeless.
        Third, we cannot deny program integrity has been compromised. As
    policymakers at the Federal level, we must ensure USDA returns to and
    maintains the virtues of our domestic nutrition safety net. But our
    constituents also have a role here. From maintaining vigilance at the
    checkout to lessen the chances of skimming to a small business taking a
    chance on a recipient, we can all come together to restore and sustain
    accountability to the taxpayers footing the 10 year, $1.2 trillion cost
    of these programs. The United Council on Welfare Fraud provides
    compelling reasons for these reforms, and more.
        And last, and perhaps most importantly, the promotion of healthy
    eating. Employment, healthcare costs, military readiness, education,
    and general longevity highly depend on the foods we consume. With the
    right resources, research, modernized programming and technology, and
    appropriate and effective Federal dietary policy, USDA, states, and
    local communities are uniquely positioned to improve the nutrition of
    millions of households. Dr. Stover will share his experiences, but most
    importantly, his vision to bring about a healthier America.
        The nutrition programs in the farm bill show the world how we as a
    nation take care of one another. And if we can put politics aside to
    have honest dialogue, promote pragmatic policymaking, and commit to
    good governance, we can move mountains for those in need.
        With that, I welcome the esteemed Ranking Member from Georgia for
    any opening remarks he would like to make.

        The Chairman. And with that, I am pleased to recognize and
    welcome the esteemed Ranking Member from Georgia for any
    opening remarks that he would like to make.

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

        Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Thank you very much, Mr.
    Chairman. Let me say this at the outset. My Democratic
    colleagues and I have said, and we will continue to say, we
    stand united against any efforts to take food away from
    children, families, or any vulnerable American in this farm
    bill, or any legislation. We stand united. Because we can also
    surely find areas that we can work together, and in a
    bipartisan way. I know, Chairman Thompson, your priorities are
    innovation, employment, integrity, and health opportunities.
    Well, we Democrats--excuse me. We Democrats care about these
    issues too, and we can work with you in a bipartisan way.
        Innovation, for example. We can use innovation to improve
    program access, improve application and processing time. On
    employment, we can provide additional support to help
    participants get and retain jobs. And we also need to take the
    time to look at the impact of artificial intelligence. Let me
    tell you that artificial intelligence is moving rapidly, and
    replacing many jobs that lower income people once had an
    opportunity to do. I was eating at a restaurant in Atlanta, and
    it was a robot that brought my menu, and a robot that brought
    the food. Now, those were jobs that once were had.
        We need to look at AI. We need to also examine the rapid
    move in technology that are making many jobs beginning--that
    lower-income people once had no longer are there. We have to
    provide support, like transportation--that is one of your
    initiatives--childcare assistance, which research has shown
    time and time again does more to encourage employment than any
    punitive time limits. And we can now assure that education,
    something critical to job readiness--and as I said, with the
    movement in technology, education becomes even more an
    environment.
        One of your goals is on integrity. We can combat EBT
    skimming so no one can lose their benefits because of a
    fraudulent action. You mentioned on health. We can incentivize
    healthy eating and improve SNAP nutrition education. Incentives
    work. Look at GusNIP, the program's great impact on fruit and
    vegetable incentives. And also, I want to say a big thank you
    to President Biden's leadership, because the recent debt limit
    agreement included a new exemption from the time limits for our
    precious military veterans, for homeless people, and for
    children of the foster care movement. And I, unfortunately,
    remain deeply disappointed that the debt limit agreement
    included a harmful SNAP provision that puts food assistance at
    risk for 700,000 of our older senior citizens. We need to work
    on that.
        And I just want to reiterate that we Democrats stand united
    against any efforts to take food away from veterans, from
    children, or any families that are vulnerable in America. We
    are too big of a country, we are too great a country, to let
    anybody go hungry who needs help. We need to provide proper and
    humane food assistance to our precious American citizens who
    are in need. Thank you.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. The chair would
    request that other Members submit their opening statements for
    the record so witnesses may begin testimony, to ensure that
    there is ample time for questions.
        Our first witness today is Ms. Tikki Brown, who is the
    Assistant Commissioner for Children and Family Services at the
    Minnesota Department of Human Services. Our next witness is Dr.
    Patrick Stover, who is the Director of the Institute for
    Advancing Health Through Agriculture. To introduce our third
    witness today, I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from
    Illinois, Mr. Sorensen.
        Mr. Sorensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am very happy
    today to be able to introduce a guest from my state, Mr. Eric
    Hodel. Mr. Hodel is the CEO of the Midwest Food Bank, which
    operates in my home district, and serves as a lifeline for
    constituents in Peoria, Morton, and Bloomington-Normal. Midwest
    Food Bank currently distributes $34 million worth of food to
    over 2,200 nonprofit organizations each month, with 12
    locations in Illinois, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana,
    Texas, Pennsylvania, New England, East Africa, and Haiti. Mr.
    Hodel, I am proud of your work in Illinois 17. Thank you for
    your testimony, your time, and, Mr. Chairman, for the ability
    to introduce him. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Well, I thank the gentleman from Illinois.
    Our fourth witness today is Ms. Dawn Royal, who is the Director
    and past President of the United Council on Welfare Fraud. And
    our fifth, and final, witness today is Dr. Angela Rachidi, who
    is a Senior Fellow and Rowe Scholar at the American Enterprise
    Institute. Thank you to all of our impressive witnesses for
    joining us today. We are now going to proceed to your
    testimony. You will each have 5 minutes. The timer in front of
    you will count down to zero, at which point your time has
    expired. Ms. Brown, please begin when you are ready.

    STATEMENT OF TIKKI BROWN, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CHILDREN AND
                    FAMILY SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,
                MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
                            MINNEAPOLIS, MN

        Ms. Brown. All right. Thank you, Chairman Thompson, Ranking
    Member Scott, and Members of the Committee for the invitation
    to testify before the House Agriculture Committee. I am Tikki
    Brown, Assistant Commissioner of Children and Family Services
    at the Minnesota Department of Human Services. With more than
    20 years of state government experience, including serving as
    Minnesota State's SNAP Director for 4 years, I am pleased to
    share Minnesota's perspective with all of you today.
        First, I would like to thank the Committee for its work to
    provide states with SNAP emergency allotments, quality control
    flexibility and waivers, and additional flexible administrative
    dollars to manage the pandemic response activities. Combined
    with the careful use of waivers, these resources allowed
    Minnesota to seamlessly deliver critical services, while
    ensuring a payment error rate below the national average.
        We took many lessons from our pandemic efforts, including
    the need to improve program access. Those improvements include
    MN Benefits, an online application for public assistant
    benefits which moves from the paper-based application to a
    mobile-friendly online version, reducing completion time from 1
    hour down to 13 minutes. Seventeen stores now participate in
    online grocery shopping, which has been an important option for
    rural residents, seniors, and participants with disabilities.
        Contacting SNAP recipients via text messages ensures that
    they are aware of important changes in their SNAP benefits. It
    improves communications with workers, and we are able to
    collect recipient feedback. Minnesota is rapidly expanding
    texting capacity and has found texting to be a reliable and
    impactful tool for communication with participants.
        The last several years have emphasized both the strength
    and the fragility of people. We understand many of our program
    participants hope they never have to rely on SNAP. However, a
    personal crisis, a job loss, or a global pandemic shakes the
    very foundation, which results in a need to ask for help.
        We know SNAP is paramount in the health and well-being of
    program participants. Referenced in my written testimony is a
    recent study conducted by the Minnesota Department of Human
    Services and John Hopkins University, which found healthcare
    costs decreased by an average of $99 per day when people have
    access to SNAP. And as you know, the majority of SNAP
    participants are children, so it will come as no surprise to
    hear additional studies conducted by my department found
    parents describe the toll a lack of food takes on mental
    health. These parents also sadly share their own stories of
    choices they made to go without food for the sake of their
    children.
        In our social safety net, many fibers are required to
    support the most vulnerable. Transportation, housing,
    healthcare, childcare, livable wages. Our participants' lives
    are complex, and they have complex needs. Alignment across
    programs is critical, and our SNAP policies require attention
    to the barriers participants face.
        This is most evident when we look at inequities in
    Minnesota's labor market. Our unemployment rate is less than
    three percent, and yet unemployment rates for our populations
    of color and American Indians are significantly higher, and
    many struggle to enter the workforce. Policies around time
    limits must consider the unequal impact on race and ethnicities
    in different communities.
        As we look to the future of SNAP, Minnesota is excited to
    continue its efforts with Tribal Nations by expanding their
    ability to provide benefit eligibility to their members. We
    will continue to increase the number of diverse organizations
    providing employment and training services and continue to
    improve our technological capacity through pilot projects like
    our upcoming, FNS funded, Rapid Cycle Evaluation Texting
    Project to boost participation in SNAP employment and training.
        We also have challenges to overcome. As an 87 county and
    three Tribe administered state, our county and Tribal partners
    are burdened by staff turnover, workforce shortages, and an
    increased caseload, and high number of applications. Some
    counties have a turnover rate in the 50 percent range. In order
    to compensate, experienced staff worked an unprecedented number
    of overtime hours, doubling expenses in 2021.
        System complexity creates an additional challenge.
    Intricate and interrelated programs result in public assistance
    systems with complex and rigid timelines. These systems require
    a careful allocation of staff resources and expertise to avoid
    case closure and unnecessary churn. And flexibility remains
    key. Minnesota's recently approved SNAP interview waivers which
    gives counties and Tribes flexibility to work with participants
    on the information needed to reduce burden, rather than follow
    a more rigid interview process.
        In closing, we are committed to the critical role of SNAP.
    It has been a privilege to meet the needs of participants
    during such a challenging time in our nation's history. We must
    continue to do so in this time of recovery. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Brown follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Tikki Brown, Assistant Commissioner, Children and
         Family Services Administration, Minnesota Department of Human
                           Services, Minneapolis, MN
        Thank you, Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Scott, and Committee
    Members for the invitation to join you today before the House
    Agriculture Committee on ``Innovation, Employment, Integrity, and
    Health: Opportunities for Modernization in Title IV.'' I am Tikki
    Brown, Assistant Commissioner for Children and Family Services at the
    Minnesota Department of Human Services. With more than 20 years of
    state government experience, including serving as Minnesota's state
    SNAP Director for several years, I am pleased to share the state
    perspective with all of you.
        The purpose of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
    is to ``promote the general welfare and to safeguard the health and
    well-being of the nation's population by raising the levels of
    nutrition among low-income households. Congress finds that the limited
    food purchasing power of low-income households contributes to hunger
    and malnutrition among members of such households. Congress further
    finds that increased utilization of food in establishing and
    maintaining adequate national levels of nutrition will promote the
    distribution in a beneficial manner of the nation's agricultural
    abundance and will strengthen the nation's agricultural economy, as
    well as result in more orderly marketing and distribution of foods. To
    alleviate such hunger and malnutrition, a supplemental nutrition
    assistance program is herein authorized which will permit low-income
    households to obtain a more nutritious diet through normal channels of
    trade by increasing food purchasing power for all eligible households
    who apply for participation.''
        SNAP has a long and successful history of providing temporary help
    to reduce food insecurity, lift people out of poverty, help families
    achieve self-sufficiency and reduce health disparities.\1\ For nearly
    60 years, the Federal Government and states have worked together to
    make these goals a reality by focusing on four primary areas:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. SNAP Supports Children and
    Families (https://www.rwjf.org/en/insights/our-research/2018/09/snap-
    supports-children-and-families.html), September 2018.

      1.  Ensuring people have reliable access to food, reducing
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                deprivation and improving health.

      2.  Incentivizing people to work to meet national and local labor
                needs and support opportunities for financial stability and
                growth.

      3.  Serving people well by being good stewards of public funds.

      4.  Prioritizing and balancing the portion of program funds required
                to administer these programs by responding to evolving
                needs through human and technological innovation.

        I hope to offer insight into how SNAP operates in Minnesota under
    the framework of these four goals and provide information as current
    and future legislation is considered.
    Ensuring people have reliable access to food reduces deprivation and
            improves health
        SNAP is a critical lifeline for approximately 440,000 people in
    Minnesota. The program supports families with children, seniors, and
    people with disabilities--these groups make up \2/3\ of all SNAP
    recipients in Minnesota.

       More than \1/3\ of SNAP recipients are children (another 30%
            are parents or adults caring for children in their homes.)

       Another \1/4\ are either seniors or adults with a
            disability.

       Seniors make up 14% of recipients.

       People with disabilities represent 11% of recipients.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Minnesota Department of Human Services SNAP data, 2021.

        While many people work hard directing resources and efforts to
    address hunger and nutrition challenges, more than \1/3\ of Minnesotans
    report not having consistent, reliable access to enough food. There is
    compelling evidence that shows systems struggle to ensure everyone has
    enough to eat in Minnesota and across the country, especially for
    people of color and Native people. In 2020, Black, Hispanic and Latino
    Minnesotans reported food insecurity at more than double the rate of
    white residents (85% of Black residents, and 70% of Hispanic residents,
    compared to 32% of white residents.) Fifty-two percent of Asian
    American residents and 55% of people of other races also reported some
    degree of food insecurity.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Wilder Foundation, New Food Insecurity Data Highlight
    Minnesota's Continuing Disparities and the Need for Multi-Sector
    Solutions (https://www.wilder.org/articles/new-food-insecurity-data-
    highlight-minnesotas-continuing-disparities-and-need-multi-sector),
    2020.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Minnesota had a record number of food shelf visits in 2022--more
    than 5.5 million visits. That is 1.7 million more visits than the
    previous record set in 2020. The increase was largely due to the rise
    in food prices.\4\ In 2022, food-at-home (grocery store or supermarket
    food purchases) prices increased by 11.4%.\5\ Food shelf use continued
    to rise, even with the distribution of Emergency SNAP supplements and
    the SNAP benefit increase in the Thrifty Food Plan.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Hunger Solutions Minnesota (https://www.hungersolutions.org/
    data-posts/2022-food-shelf-visits-hit-record-high-up-almost-2-million-
    visits-over-previous-year/), 2022.
        \5\ Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Food
    Price Outlook (https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-price-
    outlook/summary-findings/), 2023.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In 2020, the Minnesota Department of Human Services published a
    report uplifting the voices and experiences of those living in deep
    poverty that provided groundbreaking insight on the importance of
    economic stability. During interviews conducted with parents living in
    poverty, many shared they had received SNAP at some point in their
    lives. They reported that it was very valuable in helping them access
    food, especially healthy food, and worry less about whether they would
    be able to feed their family. A recipient named Alison shared how
    making sure children have enough to eat is their main concern.

        ``It helps me from worrying or trying to figure out how to feed my
    kids. It doesn't matter the situation, my kids come first. I will give
    them the last of whatever it is so that they're satisfied. You're not
    fighting and worrying about, `how am I gonna support my kids?' '' \6\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ Minnesota Department of Human Services. Improving the Health of
    People Living in Deep Poverty (https://edocs.dhs.state.mn.us/lfserver/
    Public/DHS-8061-ENG), December 2020.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        SNAP helps to offset health care costs for vulnerable adults.

       A study conducted by our agency and published in a Johns
            Hopkins University public health journal found that health care
            costs were lower for adults without a disability or dependents
            when they had access to SNAP benefits.\7\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved.
    Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Participation is Associated
    with Lower Health Care Spending among Working Age Adults without
    Dependents (https://muse.jhu.edu/article/854362), May 2022.

       Annual health care costs decreased by an average of $99 for
            every month someone otherwise subject to time limits continued
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            to receive SNAP benefits.

        The study highlights an alarmingly high burden of various chronic
    diseases in people who are subject to time limits. Among the people
    subject to time limits:

       At least one in three have significant chronic health
            problems that are likely to interfere with stable employment.
            These conditions include chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder
            (COPD), chronic renal failure, or heart disease that included a
            heart attack or required hospitalization.

       40 percent have a severe mental illness.

       Although these conditions should exempt these individuals
            from the time limit, the complexity of the work rules and
            requirements for verification frequently result in the loss of
            SNAP benefits.

        For every month someone is denied food benefits because of time
    limits, they have fewer resources for food and public expenditures on
    their health care increase. After losing food assistance, people are
    hospitalized, end up in emergency rooms and need more outpatient care.
    Denying unhealthy people access to food makes them sicker. As might be
    expected, there is an even greater reduction in monthly health care
    expenditures for people who were homeless ($152.40), had a chronic
    mental health condition ($206.10) or had a chronic physical disease
    ($193.20) when they are able to receive food benefits.
    Incentivizing people to work to meet the national and local labor needs
            and support opportunities for financial stability and growth
        SNAP supports working families--more than \1/2\ of parents with
    children receiving SNAP in Minnesota are working.\8\ Most adult
    Minnesotans who receive SNAP work but earn wages too low for their
    household to afford adequate food. The people turning to SNAP are low-
    wage workers in retail, hospitality, food service, health care and
    temporary agencies. These jobs are subject to inconsistent work
    schedules, high turnover, and few benefits. Though, in Minnesota, jobs
    are plentiful, significant skills gaps continue to limit employment for
    many workers, particularly in rural areas.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ Minnesota Department of Human Services. Characteristics of
    People and Cases on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
    (https://edocs.dhs.state.mn.us/lfserver/Public/DHS-5182N-ENG), August
    2022.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        According to an independent study featured on the U.S. Department
    of Agriculture website, there is no evidence that SNAP time limits
    increase employment or annual earnings.\9\ A more effective way to
    increase employment among SNAP recipients is to raise the earned income
    disregard that is applied to wages and earnings for a household. SNAP
    currently disregards 20% of earnings. This is out of step with other
    Federal programs, like Supplemental Security Income, which disregards
    the first $65 of earnings and then the remaining 50% in a month.
    Increasing the earned income disregard would help to incentivize work
    among SNAP recipients by reducing the effects of the benefits cliff,
    allowing recipients to maintain SNAP benefits as they earn more income.
    In Minnesota, about 60,000 households receiving SNAP could benefit from
    this policy change. Families with children and households composed
    solely of working-aged adults without a documented disability or
    children in the home would be the most likely to benefit. Minnesota's
    unemployment rate currently stands at 2.8% and the state ranks seventh
    in seasonally adjusted labor force participation. Those individuals
    still on the sidelines in Minnesota's labor force typically face
    significant barriers to work that are not easily addressed.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ Urban Institute. The Impact of SNAP Able-Bodied Adults without
    Dependents Time Limit Reinstatement in Nine States (https://
    www.fns.usda.gov/snap/impact-snap-able-bodied-adults-without-
    dependents-abawd-time-limit-reinstatement-nine), June 2021.

       Significant racial inequities exist, and the economic strain
            caused by the COVID-19 pandemic impacted populations of color
            and American Indians more significantly. The number of workers
            who have applied for Unemployment Insurance benefits as a share
            of the labor force varies widely by race and ethnicity: Blacks
            (42.2%) and American Indians (35.9%) have the highest number of
            Unemployment Insurance applications as a share of total labor
            force size, which is at least in part because of the industries
            in which they are employed. A large number of American Indians
            are employed in accommodation and food services, many of which
            were temporarily closed. Likewise, a high share of Black or
            African Americans in Minnesota work in the health care industry
            and other customer-facing industries like retail trade and
            personal services, which have all been severely impacted by
            pandemic containment measures.\10\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ https://mn.gov/deed/assets/
    061020_MN_disparities_final_tcm1045-435939.pdf.

        As the economy moves into recovery, employment trends
            indicate certain demographic groups were slower to return to
            work or didn't return at all. Individuals aged 55 and above
            were among the groups most likely to leave the workforce,
            suggesting that the pandemic has pushed more of them to retire.
            Other categories who are struggling to reenter are Black
            workers, workers with a disability and workers with lower
            levels of educational attainment.\11\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \11\ https://mn.gov/deed/newscenter/publications/trends/march-2023/
    reemployment.jsp.

        Time limits for SNAP are burdensome to implement, racially
    inequitable and ineffective in helping people move into employment or
    out of poverty. Time limits also apply to individuals who live in rural
    areas and do not have reliable access to transportation. These
    individuals want to work, but their circumstances make finding and
    keeping steady work challenging. SNAP time limits increase these
    challenges. When Minnesota lost a statewide waiver from the time limit
    in 2013, 45,000 time-limited adults without dependents lost SNAP
    benefits; we ask for support from USDA to prevent a similar outcome in
    2023.\12\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \12\ Kollannoor-Samuel, Grace, et al. ``Supplemental Nutrition
    Assistance Program Participation is Associated with Lower Health Care
    Spending Among Working Age Adults Without Dependents.'' Journal of
    Healthcare for the Poor and Underserved. 33.2. May 2022. 738.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Even though for most low-wage workers who participate in SNAP it is
    a critical work support, for some people, including college students
    and participants in work experience programs, SNAP's rigid rules can
    interfere with their advancement.
        For college students, working to better their education and
    training prevents access to food even when their income qualifies for
    SNAP. College students, many of whom are working as much as they are
    able while also trying to complete training as quickly as possible,
    face antiquated and complex additional eligibility rules. Take for
    example, Alex, a nursing student, who was required to complete the
    program in one academic year per the program requirements. This means
    Alex was taking 18 credits a semester as well as the additional
    clinical hour, which are a rotating schedule of shifts. Alex was unable
    to work outside of the rigorous academic requirements as well as the
    unpredictable clinic schedule. Alex was 24, therefore required to use
    her parent's income for her FAFSA, which placed her over income for
    additional grants. Despite having no additional resources, Alex was
    also ineligible for SNAP because she didn't meet student exemption
    criteria. Unable to access the resources she needed to stay healthy and
    focused on her degree, Alex dropped out of the LPN program.
        In addition, the student eligibility rules prevent students from
    applying for SNAP even when it is desperately needed and make it more
    difficult for eligibility workers to accurately assess eligibility.
        This jeopardizes their ability to complete these trainings. As a
    result, in 2018 37% of Minnesota state college students working hard to
    increase their earnings in the long-term reported feeling food-
    insecure. This can create a vicious cycle, with food insecurity
    discouraging the student from earning a degree.
        Supports exist within the program to help SNAP recipients increase
    their income. Minnesota's SNAP Employment and Training program has
    expanded significantly over the past 5 years and is working to improve
    outcomes and service quality. But SNAP Employment and Training is
    under-funded and administratively burdensome to both providers and SNAP
    recipients. For example, very limited direct allocation funds for the
    program cannot be used for one of the most evidence-backed program
    components--support services--and the 50% funding model is limited by
    SNAP Employment and Training program rules that discourage braided
    funding (effectively paying for 50% of services while expecting
    adherence to extensive Federal program guidelines). Most critically,
    SNAP's rigid income calculations make the best-evidenced activities
    within SNAP Employment and Training largely ineffective.
        Research shows that paid and structured work experience is among
    the most effective approaches to lifting SNAP recipients out of poverty
    [Best Practices in SNAP E&T Programs 2016-2020: Final Report, USDA, p.
    25]. But for many, particularly single adults without dependents, the
    income they earn in these programs makes them immediately ineligible
    for the very program they need for sustainable wage gain. Once they
    fall out of the training program, they often end up income eligible for
    SNAP again. Excluding income earned through a training or education
    program from SNAP income calculations would have a minimal impact on
    SNAP benefit receipt in the short term and has the potential to make a
    hugely positive impact on these individuals' benefit receipt in the
    long-term.
    Time limited SNAP recipients
        In Minnesota, American Indian and Black or African American
    recipients are significantly over-represented in the time limited group
    of recipients for many of the reasons, including those shared above.
    This over-representation means that the Federal mandates and policy
    decisions disproportionately affect these recipients, limiting their
    food benefits and further exacerbating health disparities due to food
    insecurity.
        Federal regulations allow states to seek waivers of time limits for
    areas within the state with an unemployment rate over 10% or a lack of
    sufficient jobs. Prior to the statewide waiver of time limits initiated
    by the public health emergency, Minnesota sought and received time-
    limit waivers for certain counties and most Tribal Nations. However, a
    2017 analysis found that although African American, Asian American and
    Hispanic/Latino adults experienced high unemployment in Minnesota's
    labor market, very few SNAP enrollees from these racial and ethnic
    groups were served in counties that received a waiver. American Indian
    SNAP recipients have historically made up a significant portion of the
    population in waivered areas because the time limit waiver has covered
    Tribal Nations in Minnesota due to continuous high unemployment rates
    in these communities. Minnesota is exploring options to seek waivers
    for areas that lack sufficient jobs, even in the context of
    historically low statewide unemployment rates.

       June 2022 administrative data shows that of 27,594 time-
            limited recipients, 24% showed significant challenges in
            accessing housing and were homeless. Having an address, a
            reliable phone and means of transportation are basic
            requirements for employment.

       Many SNAP recipients subject to time limits face serious
            health issues and housing barriers not related to the
            unemployment rate. However, Federal SNAP policies rely on
            individual SNAP recipients to identify whether they have
            conditions that might exempt them from the time limits. There
            are not adequate resources or systems to ensure that people
            with serious health conditions are not subject to time limits.
    Serve people well by being good stewards of public funds
        We must maintain public trust, be aware of and responsive to
    threats to the program, and ensure we review and adjust our policy and
    practices accordingly.
        As administrators of the program, there is a critical need to
    maintain and update our systems, policies and practices, especially
    with regard to technology. External criminal forces are nimble and
    target vulnerable populations. Elderly SNAP recipients are a target,
    with fewer technology resources and knowledge to detect phishing and
    other scams. Without adequate funding to implement changes, such as
    adding chip technology to EBT cards, or, moving to tap-to-pay options,
    to better protect public dollars, we will continue to be at a
    disadvantage and coming from behind, rather than proactively addressing
    needs per the evolving marketplace.
    Program Integrity
        Program integrity is a critical component of maintaining public
    confidence. States, counties and Tribes all have a role to ensure
    benefits are provided accurately. Program integrity tools, like The
    Work Number, help avoid errors related to household wages. We look
    forward to the outcome of USDA's work to expand access to wage data
    through third-party verification
        Minnesota used ARPA funds to build a tool for counties and Tribes
    to use to conduct case audits. Ongoing, systematic case audits are a
    fundamental tool to ensure integrity in the SNAP program and reduce
    errors. In addition, our weekly virtual policy and procedural update
    meetings during the pandemic contributed to an error rate under the
    national average.
    Innovations
        We thank Congress for support of funding for pandemic EBT to ensure
    children had enough to eat during summer breaks, emergency SNAP
    benefits to boost basic SNAP benefits, and additional flexible
    administrative dollars for states to manage pandemic response
    activities.
        With additional administrative funding, Minnesota was able to hire
    temporary SNAP staff to communicate program and policy changes
    efficiently and effectively to counties and Tribes during the chaotic,
    uncertain and ever-changing pandemic landscape. We created better
    learning tools for the virtual environment, stood up pandemic EBT and
    emergency SNAP programs, and piloted a contact center with interactive
    voice technology to allow people to receive answers to basic questions
    without the need for human intervention. This funding, coupled with the
    careful use of waivers, allowed Minnesota to seamlessly deliver
    critical service while ensuring a payment error rate below the national
    average.
        We are proud of the work that states undertook to provide necessary
    benefits to people in need. And, given the heroic efforts of state,
    county and Tribal staff to provide excellent customer service who are
    now managing to the workforce shortage, staff are dealing with the
    aftereffects. While change is a given in human services, the speed of
    change and the ongoing adjustments is wearing on staff at all levels.
    Local public sector employment in Minnesota has not recovered since the
    initial pandemic decline and is currently experiencing the fifth
    steepest percent decline in public sector employment compared to pre-
    pandemic levels.\13\ Eligibility workers are essential and highly
    skilled. They navigate multiple complex systems and timelines with
    applicants whose lives and needs are equally complex.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \13\ Minnesota already ranked ninth lowest public sector employment
    among states pre-pandemic. Senf, Dave. Minnesota Public Sector
    Employment Recovery from the Pandemic Recession. Minnesota Economic
    Trends, March 2023, DEED.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Simplification is key
        SNAP policies and procedures are complex and eligibility workers
    are typically responsible for learning and applying rules for multiple
    assistance programs. The more complex the policies and procedures, the
    more it costs to administer the program--including training staff,
    writing training, technical and informational materials, updating
    systems, conducting quality audits and reviews and correcting benefit
    calculation errors.
        Simplifying the benefit administration system with more automation
    offers the potential for great savings. Given the current labor issues
    in this field all states are facing, a simpler policy will go a long
    way to ensure SNAP households receive the right amount of benefits at
    the right time.
        While we are grateful for the grant opportunities currently
    provided by USDA, the flexible administrative ARPA dollars provided
    during the pandemic taught us how valuable it is for all states to have
    access to funds to test new technologies.
    Prioritizing and balancing the portion of program funds that are
            required to administer these programs by responding to evolving
            needs through human and technological innovation
        Over the last several years, Minnesota has prioritized partnerships
    with 11 federally recognized Tribal Nations to administer SNAP and
    other health and human service programs. Working closely with Tribal
    officials and providing support through state legislatively directed
    resources, the planning and implementation of human service delivery
    programs by Tribal Nations has resulted in three Tribal Nations
    determining SNAP eligibility and one administering a SNAP Employment
    and Training program. These three Tribes work in partnership with local
    units of government and successfully provide services to their members,
    both on and off reservation.
        Supporting these efforts is Minnesota Executive Order 19-24; and
    now state law 10-65; affirming the Government-to-Government
    Relationship between the State of Minnesota and Minnesota Tribal
    Nations: Providing for Consultation, Coordination, and Cooperation.
    This Executive Order states in part: The State of Minnesota and the
    Minnesota Tribal Nations significantly benefit from working together,
    learning from one another, and partnering when possible. Meaningful and
    timely consultation between the State of Minnesota and the Minnesota
    Tribal Nations will facilitate better understanding and informed
    decision making by allowing for collaboration on matters of mutual
    interest and help to establish mutually respectful and beneficial
    relationships between the state and Minnesota Tribal Nations.
        Good government programs require both an adequacy of resources to
    provide a structure of support and the flexibility to adjust and
    address state-specific needs and trends.
    MN benefits
        We are grateful for the ability to partner with nonprofits such as
    Code for America to create better access points for SNAP participants
    through a new MNbenefits portal. Before MNbenefits was implemented, it
    took applicants over an hour on average to complete a paper
    application. Using the portal, the average time to complete an
    application online has held steady at around 13 minutes.
        As one recent applicant described it, the new portal makes it
    ``very easy to complete the application. Major improvement from how it
    used to be.''
        On the opposite end of the spectrum, ``David's'' experience was
    quite different. Facing homelessness during the winter months and
    unable to secure transportation to the post office to retrieve his
    mail, he missed a notice with instructions on how to renew his SNAP
    benefits. When his cell phone was disconnected for non-payment, county
    workers could not reach him by phone, resulting in the closure of his
    SNAP benefits.
        Minnesota, like most states, struggles to balance easy access to
    the program with our ability to keep up with the demand given existing
    labor issues and the need for further automation and quicker
    verification tools and methods. Additional funds similar to the
    ``Process and Innovation Technology Grant--PTIG'' would go a long way
    to streamline and automate resulting in better service and cost
    savings.
    In conclusion
        The nation's support of SNAP is more critical now than ever before.
    Fresh from a devastating pandemic, recipients need the program now,
    more than ever. By maintaining supports, the farm bill provides an
    opportunity for lawmakers to support an individual's trajectory out of
    poverty. Acknowledging and responding to the correlation between long-
    term access to food and healthcare costs can mitigate detrimental
    policy impacts.
        SNAP has served the American people well, and exactly as it was
    designed to do. Reaching more recipients in times of need, and less
    when the economic realities of the population served are improved.
    State agencies and eligibility workers have completed an immense amount
    of work, through incredibly difficult times. They too need recovery and
    support as they move to address new challenges.
        Employment is critical, and lawmakers' acknowledgment of the
    volatile nature and realities of low wage workers will ensure that SNAP
    policies take into consideration the real barriers people face while
    maintaining the most basic of all human needs, access to food.
        Minnesota and national research highlight the disproportionate
    impact of time limits, barriers to employment, of poverty and hunger on
    American Indian and Black populations. An equity lens should be
    considered for any policy adjustments in the farm bill to minimize
    unintended impacts.
        And finally, lawmakers should consider focusing on improving
    technological supports, supporting state flexibilities and smoothing
    the benefit cliff through adjustments to the earned income disregard.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to join you today to share this
    important information about SNAP and the experiences of those who rely
    on this critical program.

        The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Brown. Now pleased to
    recognize Dr. Stover. Dr. Stover, please begin when you are
    ready.

           STATEMENT OF PATRICK J. STOVER, Ph.D., DIRECTOR,
                INSTITUTE FOR ADVANCING HEALTH THROUGH
              AGRICULTURE, TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY, COLLEGE
                              STATION, TX

        Dr. Stover. Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Scott, and
    Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to
    testify before you today. My name is Dr. Patrick Stover, and I
    serve as Director of the Institute for Advancing Health Through
    Agriculture at Texas A&M. I oversee a unique research institute
    that aligns agriculture as to the solution to skyrocketing
    rates of diet-related chronic diseases that are driving
    unsustainable healthcare costs and making both young and adult
    Americans sick. Today I will provide my perspective on the
    state of agriculture and food, and its connection to hunger and
    human health, as well as the enormous challenges we face. But
    more importantly, I will emphasize the opportunities to
    reimagine the role of agriculture in transforming our lives.
        First, for some context, Norman Borlaug won the Nobel Peace
    Prize for sparking the Green Revolution by transforming global
    food systems to be abundant and affordable, which dramatically
    reduced hunger. Today we face a growing crisis of diet-related
    chronic disease, which costs the U.S. economy over $1 trillion
    annually, and affects half of adults. We need to build upon
    Borlaug's legacy by expanding our mission, from using food to
    eliminate hunger, to using food to become healthier. This can
    only be achieved by innovating throughout the entire food
    supply chain, not by merely focusing on agenda-driven
    preferences and opinions, and around what some proclaim to be
    healthy foods.
        Today hunger and food insecurity still exist, but not
    because of insufficient food production. On the other hand,
    American diets are responsible for billions of dollars in
    healthcare costs. We must expand the goal of agriculture to
    include both hunger and health. We know that chronic diseases
    are disproportionate in rural, and other underserved,
    underrepresented, and low-resource populations, while the
    associated healthcare costs are shared by everyone. We all have
    a stake in finding solutions. We need to work together, and
    everyone needs a seat at the table.
        I am grateful for the new investments from Congress and the
    State of Texas that has enabled us to launch the Institute for
    Advancing Health Through Agriculture, which is focused on
    advancing research that connects production agriculture and
    human health. Our focus is on bridging the gap between
    precision nutrition and the land-grant university agriculture
    research complex that is the envy of the world. We are
    addressing the most pressing problems facing our nation and the
    world. I would like to highlight three initiatives that we are
    undertaking to make agriculture the solution to human health.
        First, we are now collaborating with the Chicago Council on
    Global Affairs, with experts nationally, to identify priorities
    and related barriers to make agriculture the solution to human
    health. We will make recommendations on actions we can take
    now, and what actions are aspirational, and require more study.
        Second, we have launched the Agriculture Food and Nutrition
    Scientific Evidence Center. We must have confidence in the
    quality of scientific evidence that serves as the foundation
    for our policies, practices, guidance, and programs in the
    agriculture and food space. We must ensure we have science-
    informed policy, and not policy-informed science. The newly
    created evidence center, located in downtown Fort Worth, is
    conducting state of the art scientific evidence synthesis to
    provide decision-makers with objective analysis on what the
    current science says regarding any proposed change in policy,
    practice, or guidance.
        Third, we have launched a major maternal diet and child
    health study. Science has revealed that the risk for diet-
    related chronic disease begins very early in fetal development
    and is influenced by diet. We are launching a major study to
    understand the role and contribution of maternal diet during
    pregnancy to lifelong risk of chronic disease in both mothers
    and their children.
        In conclusion, we must align agriculture with human health.
    Diet-related chronic disease places a huge financial burden on
    individuals, the healthcare system, the American economy, and
    are crippling the quality of life for many Americans. While
    historic efforts to eliminate hunger and food insecurity
    continue to be important, hunger cannot be considered in the
    absence of health. To put it bluntly, this disconnect between
    food and health threatens agriculture, the food supply, the
    health of our society. Fortunately, agriculture is uniquely
    positioned to be the solution.
        With that, thank you again for this opportunity to testify,
    and I look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Stover follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Patrick J. Stover, Ph.D., Director, Institute for

      Advancing Health Through Agriculture, Texas A&M University, College
                                  Station, TX
    Introduction
        Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Scott, and Members of the
    Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today
    and elaborate on the crucial intersection of agriculture, food,
    nutrition, and human health. My name is Dr. Patrick Stover, and I serve
    as Director of the Institute for Advancing Health Through Agriculture
    in The Texas A&M University System. I oversee a unique research
    institute that conducts research and rigorous scientific evidence
    synthesis seeking to better align Agriculture, Food and Nutrition as
    the solution to the skyrocketing rates of diet-related chronic diseases
    that are driving unsustainable health care costs and making both young
    and adult Americans sick. Medical costs associated with diet-related
    diabetes alone are more than $180 billion annually, more than the
    budgets of most Federal agencies.
        I previously served as Vice Chancellor and Dean of Texas A&M
    AgriLife, where I oversaw the agricultural and life sciences academic
    and research programs across the Texas A&M System, one of the largest,
    top ranked and most comprehensive agriculture programs in the country,
    encompassing 5,000 people and a $400 million budget. Texas A&M research
    programs span the entire agriculture value chain, from food production
    and farm inputs all the way to consumer behavior and human nutrition.
    Prior to that role, I served as director of the Division of Nutritional
    Sciences at Cornell University, one of the largest and top ranked
    academic nutrition programs in the United States. In this position, I
    worked with the World Health Organization (WHO) to establish a
    successful summer training program to train experts in evidence-based
    nutrition policy. Additionally, I have consulted for the Centers for
    Disease Control and Prevention, WHO, and the U.S. Food and Drug
    Administration on a variety of nutritional topics such as food
    fortification, nutrition policy and related research gaps. I have been
    an expert member, organizer and/or a report reviewer for several
    National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM)
    initiatives including but not limited to: ``Guiding Principles for
    Developing Dietary Reference Intakes Based on Chronic Disease''; \1\
    ``A Framework for Assessing the Effects of the Food System''; \2\
    ``Redesigning the Process for Establishing the Dietary Guidelines for
    Americans''; \3\ and ``Examining Special Nutritional Requirements in
    Disease States: Proceedings of a Workshop''.\4\ I am an elected member
    of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and currently serve in a
    leadership position as NAS Agriculture Section Chair.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ https://www.nap.edu/catalog/24828/guiding-principles-for-
    developing-dietary-reference-intakes-based-on-chronic-disease.
        \2\ https://www.nap.edu/catalog/18846/a-framework-for-assessing-
    effects-of-the-food-system.
        \3\ https://www.nap.edu/catalog/24883/redesigning-the-process-for-
    establishing-the-dietary-guidelines-for-americans.
        \4\ https://www.nap.edu/read/25164/chapter/1.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        My research program specializes in deciphering the connections
    among human genetics, dietary folic acid, and birth defect prevention,
    notably spina bifida. I was part of a global team who advanced the
    fortification of folic acid into the food supply, which has been one of
    the greatest public health successes in using food as medicine, based
    on rigorous clinical trial data, and saving health care costs. Spina
    bifida, a debilitating birth defect, is now rare thanks to changes in
    food policy. My research in this area led to the Presidential Early
    Career Award for Scientists and Engineers awarded by President Bill
    Clinton, the highest honor bestowed by the U.S. Government on
    outstanding scientists and engineers beginning their independent
    careers. I have served two terms on the NASEM Food and Nutrition Board,
    which oversees the academies' nutrition portfolio including the
    establishment of the Dietary Reference Intakes. I am a Fellow of the
    American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and former
    President of the American Society for Nutrition (ASN). As ASN
    President, I led a major initiative to understand and address public
    trust in nutrition science. Last month, I was selected by the U.S.
    Department of Agriculture (USDA) Agricultural Research Service (ARS) as
    the 2023 W.O. Atwater Lecturer, which recognizes ``scientists who have
    made unique contributions toward improving the diet and nutrition of
    people around the world.''
        Today, I want to provide my perspective on the state of
    agriculture, the food system, and its connection to hunger, nutrition,
    and human health. I will give some context and urgency related to the
    enormous challenges and barriers we face, but more importantly,
    emphasize the opportunities to reimagine the role of food and
    agriculture as the solution in transforming our lives, the economy, and
    our health. Finally, I will update you on efforts we are leading to
    position agriculture and our nation's food supply as the solution to
    the diet-related chronic disease epidemic.
    Chronic Diseases Manifest at the Interface Between the Consumer and the
            Food Environment They Experience
        As we are all aware, the food we eat is in large part responsible
    for billions in healthcare costs attributable to diet-related diseases.
    The burden of chronic disease and associated costs are disproportionate
    in minority, rural, and other underserved, low resource populations,\5\
    while the associated health care costs are shared by everyone--we all
    have a stake in finding solutions. The overall obesity prevalence among
    U.S. adults is 42.4%, driven by a disproportionate prevalence in
    African American (49.6%), Hispanic (44.8%), and Native American (48.1%)
    adults.\6\ Food insecurity follows a similar pattern.\7\ There are two
    primary and interacting drivers that underpin diet-related chronic
    disease: (1) the food environment that consumers experience and (2)
    individual consumer choices and health behaviors. The rising and
    unprecedented health care costs directly due to diets can only be
    addressed through a focused national effort that advances the spectrum
    of research, policy and practice that better aligns the food
    environment and individual consumer choices with human health outcomes.
    Both the food environment and consumer behavior need to be addressed
    together through sound policy grounded in high quality scientific
    evidence, which is largely lacking at this time.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ RAND Health Care. Landscape of Area-Level Deprivation Measures
    and Other Approaches to Account for Social Risk and Social Determinants
    of Health in Health Care Payments. September 2022.
        \6\ National Center for Health Statistics. Summary Health
    Statistics: National Health Interview Survey, 2018. (https://
    ftp.cdc.gov/pub/Health_Statistics/NCHS/NHIS/SHS/2018_SHS_Table_
    A-15.pdf).
        \7\ Coleman-Jensen A., Rabbitt M., Gregory C., Anita Singh A.
    Household Food Security in the United States in 2021, ERR-309. U.S.
    Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service; September 2022;
    Jernigan V.B.B., Huyser K.R., Valdes J., Simonds V.W. Food insecurity
    among American Indians and Alaska Natives: a national profile using the
    Current Population Survey--Food Security Supplement. Journal of Hunger
    and Environmental Nutrition 2017; 12(1): 1-10. (In eng.). DOI: 10.1080/
    19320248.2016.1227750.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Food Environment That Consumers Experience
        The agricultural system and food environment we all experience
    today has its origins in the post WWII era, where there was a consensus
    that food was a human right, and that hunger was unacceptable in the
    United States and globally. A food system and economic model was
    developed to ensure that hunger (lack of calories), and hidden hunger
    (lack of essential nutrients) would be rare and not due to insufficient
    food production to prevent nutritional deficiencies. Technology was
    brought to bear to achieve this goal. In 1970, Norman Borlaug won a
    Nobel Peace Prize for developing disease-resistant wheat plants, which
    sparked the Green Revolution. Borlaug leveraged science and technology
    to increase agricultural efficiency, generating more food production
    from the land. His legacy is the race to feed the world and eliminate
    hunger. A long-time Distinguish Professor of International Agriculture
    at Texas A&M University, his scientific and humanitarian achievements
    are legendary.
        These efforts led to the creation of a national food system that is
    abundant, affordable, nutrient fortified and high in caloric density,
    as hunger results from a deficit in calories. While this system has
    proved successful in achieving its intended mission, one of the biggest
    challenges we face today is the unintended consequence of obesity and
    other chronic health conditions. Diet-related chronic diseases cost the
    U.S. economy well over $1 trillion annually and affect 50% of adults.
    In Texas alone, obesity costs businesses $11 billion per year, and that
    is expected to reach $30 billion by 2030. We need to build upon
    Borlaug's legacy in a revolutionary new way, expanding our mission from
    simply using food to eliminate hunger and under-nutrition to also using
    food to become healthier. This necessarily involves innovating
    throughout the food supply chain and not merely focusing on what some
    deem to be ``healthy foods.''
        But, urbanization, underinvestment in agricultural research, gaps
    in knowledge, the shifting landscape of dietary guidance leading to a
    deficit in public trust all contribute to the growing disconnect
    between people and their knowledge of food production and the role of
    agriculture in human, environmental and economic health. This
    disconnect threatens the very system that puts food on their plate--
    agriculture.
    Consumer Choice, Agency and Health Behaviors
        The role of the consumer is equally important to achieving chronic
    disease reduction through food. When the purpose of food and diets is
    to avoid nutritional deficiencies, population-based approaches to
    agriculture, food and nutrition programs, policies and guidance are
    possible because most healthy individuals respond the same in the food-
    deficiency relationship. When chronic disease reduction is the
    expectation of the food environment, people respond differently to
    dietary exposures. I served as chair of an invited expert workshop to
    advise the National Institutes of Health on a major initiative in
    ``Precision Nutrition''. As former NIH Director Francis Collins has
    stated, one-size does not fit all in the diet-chronic disease
    relationship. This awareness resulted in the National Institutes of
    Health focusing on understanding the complex role that dietary
    exposures play in chronic disease, and its variability among
    individuals, primarily through the Nutrition for Precision Health (NPH)
    initiative which is expected to facilitate actionable dietary advice to
    reduce chronic diseases.
        Hence, as a nation we must focus on addressing both the food
    environment that consumers experience as well as increasing the
    individual consumer's ability to support informed and positive food
    choices, which is fundamental to achieving chronic disease reduction
    through food. The ability to make healthy food choices includes a
    person's knowledge, ability, skills, and resources to make decisions
    about the consumption of healthy foods based on their goals,
    preferences, culture, and values. While advancing the precision
    nutrition research agenda and related technologies is key to informing
    Americans of the dietary practices and foods that best support their
    health, there are also actionable steps we can take now. For example,
    there is unacceptable variability in the delivery, rigor,
    effectiveness, and impact evaluation our nutrition education programs
    that support national food assistance programs, including EFNEP and
    SNAP-Ed. Immediate attention should be paid to understanding and
    maximizing the best practices that lead to positive health behaviors
    and disease reduction across these education programs, including common
    standards for effectiveness evaluation.
    Building Public Trust in Nutrition
        A 2019 report from the Pew Research Center, and a publication from
    the American Society for Nutrition, which I co-authored, indicated
    trust gaps between the public and nutrition research scientists. The
    science of nutrition is still in its infancy and today is rife with
    misunderstanding that leaves consumers confused. Inconclusive, emerging
    research on the nutrition needs of individual persons, which has led to
    flip-flopping dietary recommendations over time, has bred distrust in
    the science around the food we eat and the way that food is made.
    That's why another piece to this puzzle is public trust. That is,
    everyone engaged in research, practice and policy must work even harder
    to ensure scientific rigor is our highest priority, especially research
    that underpins our food intake recommendations. We can only earn that
    trust by not fearing where the science takes us, by being transparent
    about the state of knowledge and the certainty of our recommendations,
    and by respecting the tight linkages between cultures and their food
    systems.
    The Texas A&M Institute for Advancing Health Through Agriculture (IHA)
            and the Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Evidence Center (AFNEC)
        The divide between agricultural production and the contemporary
    expectations of agricultural systems--transitioning from hunger to
    human health--amounts to one of the greatest challenges facing our
    society. However, agriculture is positioned uniquely to be the
    solution--to lead the world in bridging this divide, supporting human
    health in a way that is both environmentally and economically
    sustainable. As a research accelerator, the new Texas A&M Institute for
    Advancing Health Through Agriculture (IHA) is the world's first
    research institute to bring together precision nutrition and responsive
    agriculture research, linking food production to human consumption, to
    improve public health and lower health care costs. The IHA will also
    advance research to help agricultural producers and consumers harness
    big data, artificial intelligence and machine learning to produce food
    that improves public health.
        The IHA includes a USDA-ARS program called ``A Systems Approach to
    Responsive Agriculture.'' We define ``responsive agriculture'' as
    approaches that increase both the quantity of food produced (to
    eliminate hunger) and the quality of food produced in that it supports
    human health in a way that is both environmentally and economically
    sustainable. The program will work with other land-grant universities
    and USDA-ARS centers to bring big data, state-of-the-art sensors and
    computational systems approaches to responsive agriculture and
    precision nutrition. IHA has a strong emphasis on minority food systems
    and health and respects the importance of all cultures and their
    connection to food. We have entered a full collaboration with The Texas
    A&M University System member Prairie View A&M University, an 1890
    institution, which includes three post-docs for collaborative projects.
        Below, I highlight three example research and convening initiatives
    that the IHA is undertaking to make agriculture and food the solution
    to human health:
    (1) Task Force on Developing a National Roadmap for Responsive
            Agriculture Solutions
        Over the course of the next 18 months, the IHA is collaborating
    with the Chicago Council on Global Affairs' Center on Global Food and
    Agriculture (the Council) by convening committees to set priorities for
    supporting human health through food and agriculture. These priorities
    will focus on the concept of responsive agriculture, which is an
    agriculture-system and food environment that consumers experience that
    supports human health through nutrition while ensuring the system is
    environmentally and economically sustainable for future generations.
    The three domains of responsive agriculture are: chronic disease
    reduction, agricultural ecosystems and agriculture-food value chain,
    and nutrition equity. To catalyze a system of responsive agriculture,
    the IHA, with project management support from the Council, has convened
    a Task Force on Developing a National Roadmap for Responsive
    Agriculture Solutions and three committees. The task force will oversee
    the work of the committees and provide an initial framework to help
    guide the work of the committees. The composition of the committees
    includes leading experts in human health, agriculture, food, and
    economics with knowledge of biological and/or social/behavioral
    research, scientific evidence, policy, applied health and agricultural
    technologies as well as food and agriculture related industry
    representatives. This is an inclusive initiative that involves
    stakeholders throughout the entire food and agriculture value chain--
    everyone must have a seat at the table and be engaged in conversations
    to address these grand challenges at the nexus of agriculture, food
    systems, nutrition, and health.
        Achieving human health though food will require greater precision
    in dietary guidance as ``one size does not fit all'' in the diet-
    disease relationship. Hence it is essential that we maintain a highly
    diversified agriculture production system to meet the different dietary
    needs of our diverse population. Agriculture is vital to these efforts.
    We cannot solve these problems without working collaboratively with
    production agriculture.
    (2) Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Scientific Evidence Center
        To have confidence that our investments and interventions in the
    food system and human nutrition, whether a new policy action or
    recommendation, achieves the intended outcome, we must have confidence
    in the quality of the scientific evidence that serves as the
    foundation. There are major efforts underway to improve the rigor and
    reproducibility of agriculture and nutrition research. Furthermore,
    over the past 2 decades, nutrition has been moving from an approach of
    convening a group of experts to advise on policies and practices, to a
    two-tiered ``evidence-informed'' approach that considers and evaluates
    the totality of the scientific literature and data by agnostic
    methodologists or data experts, followed by the convening of experts.
    These advances are focused on removing the many biases we all have
    based on individual preferences and values around food choice when
    evaluating scientific data, but there is still much work to be done as
    discussed in more detail below.
        The Texas A&M Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Scientific Evidence
    Center located in downtown Fort Worth is conducting state-of-the-art
    scientific evidence synthesis studies to address pressing public issues
    where agriculture, food and health intersect. This one-of-a-kind
    evidence center is a place where policymakers can ask questions related
    to connections among food, agriculture, the environment and the
    economy, and research specialists will gather and combine existing data
    on any topic pertaining to diet and health or economic and
    environmental policy by performing rigorous systematic reviews. And
    then, they will interpret the data for a non-science audience. The
    center is an objective source of comprehensive scientific information
    for decision-makers, akin to evidence centers in the medical science
    domain.
    (3) Maternal Diet and Child Health
        Studies of the Dutch Famine of World War II revealed that maternal
    diet during pregnancy has strong and persistent effects on offspring
    health that persist through the lifespan, including risk for
    cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and obesity. In Texas, health and
    nutrition for mothers and their children is in a state of crisis, which
    ultimately negatively impacts all Americans. The 2021 March of Dimes
    Report Card, which provides a comprehensive overview of the health of
    moms and babies across the U.S. and grades states' performance on
    mother and infant health, gave Texas a ``D'' grade. We believe it
    doesn't have to be this way. Texas has one of the nation's highest
    rates of poor birth outcomes (pre-term birth rate of 10.8% statewide,
    14.6% for African American Women in Texas), and one in nine babies are
    born too soon in Texas. The maternal mortality rate in Texas is 34.5
    deaths per 100,000 births, which is higher than the U.S. rate at 17.4
    deaths per 100,000 births (highest among developed nations) and higher
    than Cuba, Mexico, and Uzbekistan. Texas ranks highest among the U.S.
    states and territories in childhood obesity with 20.3% of children ages
    10-17 considered obese.
        To address these challenges of maternal and child health, and high
    rates of chronic disease, the IHA is launching a major study to
    understand the role and contribution of maternal diet during pregnancy
    to chronic disease. There are three popular and distinct food
    traditions in Texas: African American, Hispanic and European. Our food
    preferences are one of the many things that make our state one of the
    most culturally diverse. The United States is a melting pot of people
    with various ethnicities and heritages, and the current menu landscape
    at all types of restaurants and food-service operations certainly
    reflects that. Food is not just a part of culture; it can define
    culture. However, it is important to note that food traditions such as
    those we have in Texas and in many parts of the country provide
    different nutritional benefits, as well as challenges to consumers. We
    must work within the cultural contexts of these food traditions to
    improve maternal and child health, starting at pregnancy. We must use
    certain science to work within these cultural contexts to improve lives
    through food systems and avoid the temptation to simply ``tell people
    what to eat.''
        The IHA is deploying mobile health units to perform this community-
    based scientific research that seeks to understand the connection
    between food systems and maternal health (i.e., precision nutrition)
    and improve health habits in urban and underserved communities,
    populations that are not normally accessible to university-based
    research. These ``labs on wheels'' will house tools like body
    composition scanners, biometric recorders and blood pressure monitors
    and may partner with local farmers markets to deliver healthy food to
    residents. Equipped with information about healthy living, the mobile
    health units will also generate research data by surveying citizens
    about their current food habits. For many Texans, they will be the
    IHA's first touchpoint to connect food and health in underserved
    communities.
    Conclusion
        While historic efforts to eliminate hunger and food insecurity were
    important and well-intentioned, hunger cannot be considered in the
    absence of agriculture and health. We need to develop a systems
    approach to connecting agriculture, food, environment, economic and
    human health.
        The costs of the current situation are hard to overstate. Diet-
    related chronic diseases place a huge financial burden on individuals,
    the health care system, and the American economy as a whole--as well as
    a heavy toll on life expectancy and quality of life. Our society needs
    help improving health outcomes and re-establishing trust in the science
    of nutrition and all of agriculture. Again, in achieving this goal, we
    must ensure our practices across the entire food and agriculture value
    chain are environmentally and economically sustainable for future
    generations.
        Fortunately, there are solutions on the horizon. Achieving those
    improvements requires that the bridge between producers and consumers
    be rebuilt and no longer fragmented. It also requires that policies and
    practices must be informed by the best available science, and that
    nutrition and food needs must be based on people's specific biology and
    physiology, cultural preferences, transparency regarding scientific
    certainty and current health needs as they change over a lifetime. And,
    finally, it requires us to bolster citizen education to bring consumers
    along with the evolving field to earn their trust, ultimately allowing
    them to make the best decisions for themselves--benefitting the whole
    population in the aggregate.
        It is also critical to restore trust across the entire food value
    chain, from producers to consumers. To meet these critical expectations
    of the food system, all actors and players in the food system must have
    a seat at the table to ensure collaboration and cooperation, while
    keeping rigorous and transparent science and the goals of eliminating
    hunger while advancing human, environmental and economic health, as
    paramount.
        The White House recently proposed an $8 billion Federal and private
    partnership to implement program and policy initiatives referred to as
    ``Food is Medicine'' (FIM), to reduce the prevalence of chronic
    diseases. At this time, reducing hunger and chronic disease through
    food policies and programs that are evidence-based and therefore
    achievable will require first filling fundamental knowledge gaps
    through a nutrition research agenda that builds a deeper understanding
    of the diet-disease relationship. In the case of folic acid
    fortification for birth defect prevention, there was a strong evidence
    base to ensure the likelihood of success. For other FIM initiatives,
    our policies, programs and practices cannot get ahead of the science if
    they are to be successful.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I look forward to your
    questions.

        The Chairman. Dr. Stover, thank you so much. I am now
    pleased to recognize Mr. Hodel, please begin your testimony
    whenever you are ready.

     STATEMENT OF ERIC E. HODEL, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, MIDWEST
                         FOOD BANK, NORMAL, IL

        Mr. Hodel. Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Scott, and
    Members of the Committee, good morning, and thank you for the
    invitation to participate in today's hearing. My name is Eric
    Hodel, and I serve Midwest Food Bank as the Chief Executive
    Officer. I am honored to have a seat at the table today.
    Midwest Food Bank was founded by a farmer 20 years ago. I too
    was raised on a farm, and continue to manage a 1,400 acre grain
    and livestock farm, in addition to my responsibilities at
    Midwest Food Bank. I come today understanding the impacts of
    agriculture policy as both a producer and servant to the food-
    insecure. Thanks in advance for the important work and policies
    the Agriculture Committee supports through the USDA.
        Food insecurity is real. It is besieging our urban and
    rural poor, grandparents on Social Security caring for
    grandchildren, struggling single parents, and the
    underemployed. Every day Midwest Food Bank rescues food that
    would otherwise be discarded and effectively distributes it to
    our nonprofit agencies and food recipients. My ask today for
    the Committee on Agriculture is simple, continue providing
    programs and support that are open and inclusive for all food
    banks to help put food on the table for the nearly 35 million
    Americans who live in food-insecure households. I am prayerful
    today's testimonies and discussion from all of us will provide
    innovative ideas needed to change the trend line of food
    insecurity.
        After 2 decades of sustainable growth, our values and
    missions remain steadfast. In 2022 Midwest Food Bank
    distributed $415 million of food, including family disaster
    relief boxes. We have ten locations across the U.S., 55 full
    time employees, and 99.5 of every dollar is spent on program
    services. Our business model is simple. We receive donations of
    food, financial support, and volunteer efforts. With these
    three inputs, we deliver four programs, distributing food to
    nonprofit agencies, disaster relief, Tender Mercy Nutritional
    Meal, and weekend feeding program for school-age children. We
    serve small- to very-large-agencies, knowing that each have a
    role to play in providing food access. We do not collect
    payment from our agencies for food provided to them. This
    allows our agencies' operational costs to not be burdened, and
    their local impact to go further.
        Some of our agencies will partner with their local grocery
    store, and team together to purchase or receive donated food
    items to help supplement the MFB donated food. It is a
    collaborative and community team effort to fight hunger and
    serve food to individuals and families. We believe change
    occurs in the community, and our hope is to serve our food
    recipients for a season, not for a lifetime.
        We celebrated the downward trend in food rates of food
    insecurity across our nation in the decade leading up to 2022,
    and then unexpectedly the pandemic catapulted more families
    into a state of food insecurity. Our combination of food
    distribution and disaster relief equipped us for this
    challenging season. The USDA Farmers to Families Food Box was a
    valuable resource for Midwest Food Bank. We distributed over
    two million USDA Farmers to Families Food Boxes, and we
    appreciate and applaud the USDA for the quick program
    execution. The program injected nutrition directly into the
    emergency food system.
        ``Never waste a crisis'' is a leadership motto I firmly
    believe and follow, and so at Midwest Food Bank we have taken
    the learnings from the Farmers to Families Food Boxes and
    improved our availability in our disaster relief boxes. We now
    provide our boxes for humanitarian agencies to deliver. We have
    also teamed with corporations to study data on the high poverty
    countries and counties in the United States. And thanks to
    their financial support to purchase food items, our volunteers
    assemble the Family Food Boxes, and an agency in location
    provides delivery service of these food boxes to homes. Nearly
    1,000 food boxes, representing 15,000 meals, are delivered each
    week into eastern Kentucky. Future projects and plannings for
    expansion in Mississippi and Louisiana are underway, based on
    data.
        Additionally, we have started a pilot program with a
    logistics company to keep Family Food Boxes in inventory to
    help support the super rural communities. Their drivers will
    have access to shelf stable food boxes to take out with them on
    delivery routes, and they can determine and share appropriately
    with those people battling food insecurity. As I mentioned,
    Midwest Food Bank has ten main warehouses distributing food
    into 23 states. As we continue to grow, USDA's TEFAP is an
    option we would explore, and look for an opportunity to provide
    staple food options in addition to the industry rescued food.
    We request an open bid process for all food banks to have an
    opportunity to apply.
        Moving forward, we will continue to pursue four
    opportunities, mission focus, nutrition, collaboration, and
    community partnerships. In closing, we ask the Committee on
    Agriculture to commit to an equitable policy that channel
    government resources to independent food banks to meet program
    requirements. Relieving hunger and malnutrition is a complex
    challenge requiring a multifaceted solution. We ask for your
    continued effort to bring community-centric programs to the
    table. Together we will provide food to families in need as we
    serve and support the communities across America with
    innovation and nimble execution.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Hodel follows:]

     Prepared Statement of Eric E. Hodel, Chief Executive Officer, Midwest
                             Food Bank, Normal, IL
        Good morning and thank you for the invitation to participate in
    today's hearing. My name is Eric Hodel, and I serve Midwest Food Bank
    as the Chief Executive Officer. I am honored to have a seat at the
    table today.
        Midwest Food Bank was founded by a farmer 20 years ago. I too was
    raised on a farm and continue to manage a 1,400 acre grain and
    livestock farm in addition to my responsibilities at Midwest Food Bank.
    I come today understanding the impacts of agriculture policy as both a
    producer and a servant to the food-insecure. Thanks in advance for the
    important work and policies the Agriculture Committee supports through
    the USDA.
        Food insecurity is real. It is besieging our urban and rural poor,
    grandparents on social security caring for grandchildren, struggling
    single parents, and the underemployed. Everyday Midwest Food Bank
    rescues food that would otherwise be discarded and efficiently
    distributes it to nonprofit agencies and food recipients. My ask today
    for the Committee on Agriculture is simple: Continue providing programs
    and support that are open and inclusive for all food banks to help put
    food on the table for the nearly 35 million Americans who live in food-
    insecure households. I am prayerful today's testimonies and discussion
    from all of us will provide the innovative ideas needed to change the
    trend line of food insecurity.
        After 2 decades of sustainable growth, our values and mission
    remain steadfast. In 2022, Midwest Food Bank distributed $415M in food,
    including family food disaster relief boxes. We have ten locations
    across the U.S. spanning from Connecticut to Arizona. We have 55 full-
    time employees, and 99.5 of every dollar spent is for program
    services.
        Our business model is simple: We receive donations of food,
    financial support, and volunteer efforts. With these three inputs, we
    deliver four programs: (1) Distributing food to nonprofit agencies, (2)
    providing Disaster Relief support, (3) producing Tender Mercies
    nutritional rice & beans meal and (4) weekend feeding program for
    school aged children.
        We serve small- to very-large-agencies knowing they each have a
    role to play in providing food access. We do not collect payment from
    our agencies for food provided to them. This allows our agency's
    operational cost to not be burdened and their local impact to go
    further. Some of our agencies will partner with their local grocery
    store and team together to purchase or receive donated food items to
    help supplement the MFB donated food. It's a collaborative and
    community team effort to fight hunger and serve food to individuals and
    families. We believe change occurs in the community. Our hope is to
    serve our food recipients for a season, not for a lifetime.
        We celebrated the downward trend in rates of food insecurity across
    our nation in the decade leading up to 2020. And then, unexpectedly,
    the pandemic catapulted more families into a state of food insecurity.
    Our combination of food distribution to nonprofits and Disaster Relief
    equipped us to promptly serve during this challenging season. The USDA
    Farmers to Families Food Box Program was a valuable resource for
    Midwest Food Bank. We distributed over two million USDA Farmers to
    Families Food boxes. We appreciate and applaud the USDA for the quick
    program execution from concept to delivered boxes. The program injected
    nutrition directly into the emergency food system--while supporting
    farmers and producers.
        ``Never waste a crisis'' is a leadership motto I firmly believe and
    follow. And so, at Midwest Food Bank we have taken the learning from
    the [Farmers] to Families Food boxes and improved the availability of
    our Disaster Relief boxes. We now provide our boxes for humanitarian
    and agencies to deliver. We have also teamed with corporations to study
    data on the high poverty counties and pockets in the U.S. And thanks to
    their financial support to purchased food items, our volunteers
    assemble the family food boxes and an agency in location provides
    delivery service of these food boxes to homes. Nearly 1,000 food boxes
    representing 15,000 meals are delivered each week into eastern
    Kentucky. And future projects are in the planning stages for
    Mississippi and Louisiana. Additionally, we have started a pilot
    program with a logistics company to keep family food boxes in inventory
    to support the super rural communities. Their drivers will have access
    to shelf stable food boxes to take out with them on delivery routes and
    they can determine and share appropriately with those people battling
    food insecurity.
        As mentioned earlier, Midwest Food Bank has ten main warehouses
    distributing food into 23 states. As we continue to sustainably grow,
    USDA's The Emergency Food Assistance Program, commonly known as TEFAP,
    is an option we are exploring and looking for as an opportunity to
    provide staple food options, in addition to the industry rescued food.
    We request an open bid process for all food banks to have an
    opportunity to apply.
        Moving forward, Midwest Food Bank will continue to pursue four
    opportunities:

       Mission Focus--Serving our agencies with a focus on
            efficiency and excellence.

       Nutrition--Increasing the nutrition of food distributed,
            procured through multiple channels.

       Collaboration and sponsorship--Build relationships with
            industry (food and other) to provide financial support,
            volunteers, in-kind services, and rescue food for re-use in the
            food bank network.

       Community Partnerships--Strengthening our partnerships with
            community leaders and agencies to advance holistic programing
            for those we serve.

        In closing, we ask the Committee on Agriculture to commit to
    equitable policies that channel government resources to independent
    food banks able to meet program requirements. Alleviating hunger and
    malnutrition is a complex challenge requiring a multi-faceted solution.
    We ask that you continue to bring efficient, community-centric programs
    to the table for collaboration. Together we will provide food to
    families in need as we serve and support communities across America
    with innovation and nimble execution.

        The Chairman. Mr. Hodel, thank you very much. Ms. Royal,
    please begin when you are ready.

               STATEMENT OF DAWN ROYAL, MEMBER, BOARD OF
    DIRECTORS AND PAST PRESIDENT, UNITED COUNCIL ON WELFARE FRAUD,
                              GREYBULL, WY

        Ms. Royal. Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Scott, Members
    of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to address you
    today. My name is Dawn Royal. I am a current Director and two-
    term past President of the United Council on Welfare Fraud,
    commonly referred to by its acronym, UCOWF. The United Council
    on Welfare Fraud is a national professional organization
    dedicated to protecting the integrity of our nation's public
    assistance programs. We are the only national organization
    singularly focused on the detection, prevention, and
    prosecution of welfare fraud. UCOWF has over 1,000 members
    throughout the country, who will proudly celebrate UCOWF's 50
    year history this year at its annual training conference.
        While I have always been aware of SNAP and its predecessor
    the Food Stamp Program, I didn't learn the importance of the
    program until I became an investigator 15 years ago. I think we
    all agree that the United States cannot claim to be the most
    powerful country in the world if our citizens are hungry. On
    this point, there can be no debate. The importance of a strong
    nutrition assistance program cannot be overstated. I volunteer
    my time to promote UCOWF's mission, and I am intensely proud of
    my job as a Certified Welfare Fraud Investigator. My day-to-day
    duties are investigating allegations of fraud. I am on the
    front line. And I am here to talk today about current real-
    world fraud in SNAP that happens every day.
        My days are seldom dull, not only because of the volume of
    cases I work through, but also because I don't work with hunch
    or suspicion. I have to find facts and evidence to prove, or
    disprove, fraud in--allegations of fraud and misuse. As an
    example, I worked a case where a man submitted several
    applications over several years where he repeatedly claimed his
    only source of income was a nominal amount from Social Security
    Disability, and yet he reported in a rented home in an area
    with one of the highest costs of living in the country.
        After my extensive investigation I was able to prove
    multiple false statements, including the applicant was not a
    resident of my state, and that he and his family lived in a
    bordering state in a home he owned, as well as his nine cars,
    motorcycles, and a sailboat. The Defendant pleaded guilty to a
    felony, and paid over $28,000 of restitution, and a single
    payment he presented at his sentencing hearing.
        Members of this Committee, it is investigators through this
    country who diligently work every day to detect, prevent, and
    prosecute fraud that keep SNAP strong. We identify and bring
    those who take unlawful advantage of the program into the light
    and hold them accountable for their actions.
        There are simple measures that we can discuss today that
    can be included in the farm bill that will give immediate and
    substantial assistance to the fight of the ever-increasing
    occurrences of fraud that have become rampant in the program.
    First, additional funding, such as increasing retention amounts
    and mandating retention money be used for the prevention,
    detection, and prosecution of fraud. Second, access to
    technology, including immediately implementing the National
    Accuracy Clearinghouse. And third, updates to antiquated
    policies, including geographical controls on EBT purchases.
        Thank you for giving me the opportunity to provide you with
    our views, and what we in UCOWF see as simple measures that
    will make significant strides in reducing fraud and abuse in
    this vital safety net program. We also sincerely appreciate the
    opportunity to further discuss the outstanding work
    investigators do every day, and what you can do to help their
    efforts to promote and protect the integrity of the
    Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, so when America's
    vulnerable citizens need help, there is a strong and fair
    program standing ready.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Royal follows:]

     Prepared Statement of Dawn Royal, Member, Board of Directors and Past
            President, United Council on Welfare Fraud, Greybull, WY
    Program Integrity for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
        Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Scott, Members of the Committee,
    thank you for the opportunity to address you today. My name is Dawn
    Royal, I am a member of the United Council on Welfare Fraud, commonly
    referred to by its acronym, UCOWF. I am honored by the invitation to
    discuss the devastating problem of fraud that plagues the Supplemental
    Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and advocate for simple changes in
    the farm bill that would substantially strengthen integrity.
        The United Council on Welfare Fraud (UCOWF) is a non-partisan
    national professional organization dedicated to defending against the
    erosion of integrity in our nation's public assistance programs. We are
    the only national organization singularly focused on the detection,
    prevention, and prosecution of welfare fraud. We provide annual
    training on program integrity best practices, fraud trends, and the
    only professional certification in our field. Our membership spans
    state, county, and Territory SNAP agencies and is comprised of over
    1,000 program administrators, analysts, Inspectors General,
    investigators--both sworn and non-sworn--claims overpayment
    specialists, and quality control auditors.
        I have served two terms as UCOWF's President, and currently co-
    Chair our Intergovernmental Committee which collaborates and educates
    the public, agency, and government leadership on welfare fraud. While I
    volunteer my time to promote UCOWF's vision, I work full-time as a
    state Certified Welfare Fraud Investigator. My day-to-day duties are
    investigating allegations of fraud, I am on the front line, and I am
    here today to talk about current, real-world fraud impacting SNAP every
    day. My subject matter expertise is the product of personal experience
    conducting numerous investigations, face to face discussions with other
    investigators and the analysis of data from the unique perspective of
    protecting the SNAP program feeding our most needy members of society
    while safeguarding our nation's taxpayer resources.
        The United Council on Welfare Fraud has the steadfast belief that
    the United States cannot claim to be most powerful country in the world
    if its citizens are hungry. On this point, there can be no debate; the
    importance of a strong nutrition assistance program cannot be
    overstated.
        Members of this Committee, it is the investigators throughout this
    country, who diligently work every day to detect, prevent and prosecute
    fraud that keeps SNAP strong. We identify and bring those who take
    unlawful advantage of the program into the light and hold them
    accountable for their actions. Unfortunately, we are overrun by those
    who leverage the compassion of the American taxpayers and steal the
    dollars allocated to this program with impunity.
        Our nation's public assistance fraud investigators are roundly
    under-funded and insufficiently staffed to address the volume of
    suspected fraud; and most days, we know we are fighting an unwinnable
    battle. Not only do we face ever changing fraud schemes, but we often
    are crippled by antiquated regulations and agency bureaucracy.
    Fraud in SNAP
        SNAP fraud occurs in three ways:

       Eligibility Fraud--Eligibility fraud is when an applicant
            provides false or incomplete information to obtain SNAP
            benefits for which they are ineligible. This occurs in both
            recipients and retailers. In SNAP, recipient eligibility fraud
            is the responsibility of the state and county program integrity
            staff, and violations result in disqualifications--one year for
            the first offender.\1\ When someone does receive SNAP in two or
            more states in the same month or in two or more households
            within the same state, it is referred to as dual
            participation.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-7/subtitle-B/chapter-II/
    subchapter-C/part-273/subpart-F/section-273.16.
        \2\ https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-7/subtitle-B/chapter-II/
    subchapter-C/part-272/section-272.4#p-272.4(e).

          The Burden of Proof in administrative disqualification hearings
            is set a Clear and Convincing, a higher threshold than any
            other government assistance program.\3\ In fact, it's easier to
            arrest a suspected violator with Probable Cause than it is to
            administratively prosecute. Retailer program eligibility is the
            responsibility of the United States Department of Agriculture
            (USDA) Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) national office.
            Retailer violations exceeding $250,000 fall under the
            jurisdiction of the USDA Inspector General.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-7/subtitle-B/chapter-II/
    subchapter-C/part-273/subpart-F/section-273.16#p-273.16(e)(6).

       Identity Fraud--The food assistance program, much like tax-
            refund fraud and unemployment insurance fraud exposed during
            the Pandemic Health Emergency, is targeted by both domestic and
            international fraudsters. With data breaches and the growing
            global modernization of foreign states and the proliferation of
            stolen Personal Identification Information (PII), SNAP now
            stands alone as the largest Federal program with antiquated or
            non-existent anti-fraud measures. Unfortunately, these identity
            theft attacks occur in both recipient and retailers. This
            includes synthetic identity fraud, skimming of Electronic
            Benefit Transaction (EBT), and account takeover--which results
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            in the loss of benefits for real legitimate SNAP recipients.

       Trafficking--The exchange of SNAP benefits for anything
            other than eligible food items is referred to as trafficking.
            The most common example of this is when a recipient exchanges
            SNAP benefits for cash at a dishonest retailer. UCOWF members
            have also seen benefits trafficked for rent, firearms,
            narcotics, and human trafficking--and while those incidents may
            be uncommon, no instances are acceptable. Despite this form of
            fraud resulting from a quid-pro-quo transaction, retailers can
            be removed with a Preponderance of the Evidence. Even though it
            is the same incident, antiquated rules require the much higher
            Clear and Convincing evidential burden for recipients.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45147 2018
    Congressional Research Service report: ``Errors and Fraud in the
    Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program'', pp. 37-38:

          ``Retailer and recipient trafficking proceedings have different
    burdens of proof; therefore, gov-
      ernments will not necessarily prevail in both cases with the same
    evidence. Accepting SNAP
      benefits as a form of payment is not an entitlement for retailers. To
    disqualify a SNAP retailer
      for a violation of SNAP rules, USDA-FNS must only meet a lower-level
    burden of proof--the
      `preponderance of the evidence' standard. Receiving SNAP benefits is
    an entitlement for eligible
      individuals. To disqualify a SNAP recipient for fraud, a state agency
    must meet a higher-level
      burden of proof--the `clear and convincing evidence' standard. This
    means that evidence
      deemed sufficient to prove retailer trafficking may not be sufficient
    to prove recipient traf-
      ficking. Indeed, over 84% of the USDA-FNS retailer trafficking cases
    that resulted in a perma-
      nent disqualification in FY 2016 relied primarily on an analysis of
    suspicious transaction pat-
      terns based on Anti-fraud Locator using EBT Retailer Transactions
    (ALERT) system data.
      These EBT transaction data, on their own, are not generally
    considered sufficient grounds for
      the disqualification of SNAP recipients. For this reason, state
    agencies often have difficulty dis-
      qualifying recipients whose EBT cards were used in transactions
    flagged as trafficking by
      ALERT transaction data analysis, absent other evidence of recipient
    trafficking.''

        UCOWF contends that recipient trafficking fraud should not be an
    entitlement and should use the preponderance standard as other
    entitlement programs.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Common Sense Modernization of Regulations Are Needed
        There are simple measures that can be included in the farm bill
    that will give immediate and substantial assistance to fight the ever-
    increasing occurrences of fraud that have become epidemic in the
    program. Specifically, some measures or provisions include:
    Increased Retention Amounts with Mandated Use
        No incentives currently exist for SNAP agencies to detect and
    prevent fraud at the front-end.\5\ Current incentives only exist in the
    inefficient recovery of overpayments, also known as ``pay and chase.''
    States retain either 20% (Inadvertent Household Errors/Unproven Fraud)
    or 35% (Intentional Program Violation/fraud proven at administrative or
    criminal proceedings). Prior farm bills reduced this amount from 50%
    retained share of recoveries.\6\ Unfortunately, there are no mandates
    that require agencies reinvest their state share of recoveries into
    program integrity; and few do.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ 2014 GAO report: Despite the U.S. Government Accountability
    Office recommendations for FNS to explore ways that Federal incentives
    can better support cost effective state anti-fraud activities nearly a
    decade ago, nothing has changed. See https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-
    14-641.
        \6\ Historically, the state retention rates have changed several
    times. Prior to October 1, 1990, IPV retention was 50%. Afterwards and
    until September 30, 1995, the rate was reduced to 25%. The rate was
    changed back to 50% until January 1, 2001, when the 35% rate was
    established. Some states reinvest the retained percentage of
    collections into their integrity programs; however, FNS does not
    provide guidance or mandates for states to do so. This results in the
    recoveries (state revenue) being diverted to pay for competing
    priorities and not reinvested back into program integrity initiatives,
    similar to guidance on the use of SNAP QC performance bonuses (Section
    4021).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The August 2014 GAO report suggested that increasing this retention
    rate and restricting the use of retained funds to state agency anti-
    fraud activities could significantly enhance efforts to combat
    recipient trafficking, noting that the strategy ``may result in a net
    savings for SNAP if increased collections in payment recoveries
    outweigh the increased amount states receive in retentions.'' \7\ A
    decade later, nothing has changed.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-14-641.pdf p. 15.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Grant Opportunities
        FNS spends 0.005% of appropriations on anti-fraud efforts. One
    twentieth of one percent. States are forced to carry the burden of
    protecting Federal assets/taxpayer monies with a 50% administration
    reimbursement rate. SNAP-Ed receives more money, half a billion
    dollars, at 100% Federal funding; yet state program integrity efforts
    receive no earmarks and require 50/50 state matching. While states can
    qualify for any number of annual performance bonuses totaling $48
    million, no such incentive award is issued for stopping or preventing
    fraud, waste, and abuse.\8\ States, reluctant to invest their limited
    resources to protect Federal taxpayer resources, are put at a
    significant disadvantage when compared to other assistance programs.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-7/subtitle-B/chapter-II/
    subchapter-C/part-275/subpart-G/section-275.24#p-275.24(a)(1).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The only grant program providing funds to states to combat fraud is
    the SNAP Fraud Framework Grant, established by Section 4029 of the 2014
    Farm Bill--which awards up to $750,000 to a single state out of the
    total $5M appropriated.\9\ However, not all appropriations are
    distributed, and no grants were published or awarded in 2016 and
    2017.\10\ This grant expires at the end of this Federal fiscal
    year.\11\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ The SNAP Fraud Framework contains FNS guidance on best
    practices for states to follow for program integrity activities. The
    Framework was released in 2018. Despite intentions it would exist as a
    living document, it has never been updated.
        \10\ https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45147.
        \11\ https://www.fns.usda.gov/grant/snap-fraud-framework-
    implementation.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fraud Data and Rates
        The question of how much fraud is a topic of much discussion and
    debate. FNS contends fraud rates of less than 1% and holds the program
    as a model of Federal excellence. Anyone, including the public, can
    clearly see the numbers don't add up. It is a matter of debate even
    amongst UCOWF members across the nation with rates ranging from 8% to
    40% of all households currently enrolled. One thing is clear--the fraud
    rate varies from County to County, state to state . . . but the numbers
    being bantered about by USDA FNS amount to nothing short of
    gaslighting.
        A simple internet search for `SNAP fraud' will reveal dozens of
    news stories with real examples. Last week in Michigan, three
    individuals were arrested in connection with stealing EBT benefits from
    8,000 SNAP households from across the nation, mostly in California, and
    spending the benefits in Detroit Sam's Club stores. While FNS monitors
    EBT transactions for fraud, they do not monitor large supermarkets,
    such as Sam's Club. The number of stolen benefits was said to be $4
    million--but the actual amount is reportedly much higher.\12\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \12\ https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/michigan-catches-4m-of-food-
    stamp-fraud-mum-on-fraud-scope/ar-AA1c4rX7.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The issue is compounded by the mandatory quarterly reporting by
    state SNAP agencies in the FNS 366b (fraud reporting) and FNS 209
    (claims recovery) reports. Simply put, the numbers are wrong. I am
    reticent to say this is intentional as USDA FNS does not publicly post
    this information online, and it takes months to get a FOIA response.
    This Committee can observe this issue for themselves by comparing the
    county and state submitted data to the FNS State Activity reports,
    which are grossly inaccurate as a simple review can attest.
        According to the fiscal year 2020 FNS State Activity Report,
    California established almost 269,000 overpayment claims, but only 52
    for fraud (note: California has a reported 5,245,040 persons on
    SNAP).\13\ However, contrast this with the 366b report submitted to FNS
    showing 28,407 cases of eligibility fraud that resulted in reduced or
    denied benefits.\14\ 2,279 were submitted for criminal prosecution or
    administrative disqualification equal to $2.55 million in eligibility
    fraud claims. Yet California only established 52 fraud claims? That
    does not add up, and there is a clear disconnect between the data
    collected by states and reported by FNS. Using flawed data results in
    flawed statistics--such as claims of only .01%. This alone demands
    Congressional oversight inquiries and USDA OIG investigations.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \13\ https://fns-prod.azureedge.us/sites/default/files/resource-
    files/FY20-state-activity-report.pdf.
        \14\ UCOWF Freedom of Information Act request to FNS for FFY2020.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The states themselves know the numbers are much higher.
    Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's Inspector General ``told lawmakers
    during a recent budget hearing that the agency uncovered a 40% fraud
    rate among public assistance beneficiaries--primarily in the
    Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program.'' \15\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \15\ https://www.bradfordera.com/news/key-pa-budget-negotiator-
    hopes-for-welfare-fraud-compromise/article_560351bf-6e3e-5beb-8177-
    18282b864774.html.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Florida Medicaid and Public Assistance Fraud Task Force
    commissioned an independent study in 2012 on SNAP eligibility fraud in
    the state--omitting identity theft and trafficking--and found 7.5% of
    SNAP households were fraudulent. At today's enrollment, this s
    translates to 129,243 investigations. At current staffing levels, this
    amounts to 2,585 cases per investigator--a workload that would take
    Florida 51 years to complete.
    More Investigative Oversight Staffing
        Nearly all state and county SNAP agencies are facing a shortage of
    eligibility workers currently focused on Unwinding and a backlog of
    certifications since the PHE ended. However, the worker shortage has
    hit the hardest in program integrity. Current antiquated regulations
    only require fraud detection units when an ``area'' exceeds 5,000
    households--no standard in the amount of Program Integrity staff is
    defined--and the ``area'' can include the entire state.\16\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \16\ https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-7/subtitle-B/chapter-II/
    subchapter-C/part-272/section-272.4#p-272.4(g).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Staffing varies at the state level and is grossly deficient--some
    states only have a single fraud investigator. Fraud rates may appear
    low--but only because states lack staff and resources to address fraud
    prior to issuance. GAO has reported on this in a 2016 report--and while
    recipient rolls and program expenditures have drastically increased
    over the past 20 years, there have been few increases to staff
    dedicated in protecting SNAP.\17\ FNS must mandate a minimum ratio of
    Investigators to SNAP households.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \17\ https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-16-719t.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    National Accuracy Clearinghouse
        Several southern states tested the concept of data sharing through
    the ``buddy state'' model as early as 2008 as a result of lessons
    learned operating D-SNAP programs following Hurricane Katrina. The
    establishment of the Partnership Fund for Program Integrity Innovation
    by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in 2010 created the
    opportunity for funding a more comprehensive solution.
        The following year, OMB awarded the USDA FNS $2.5 million with the
    goal of reducing improper payments that occur due to dual participation
    in SNAP. This grant funded the development of a searchable database--
    the National Accuracy Clearinghouse (NAC)--to support near real-time
    sharing of eligibility information. Subsequently, Mississippi was
    awarded the funding to lead the project on behalf of a consortium of
    contiguous states (also including Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and
    Louisiana, and most recently, Missouri).
        A 2015 independent evaluation of NAC was provided to Congress
    showing success and the return on investment and cost savings to the
    program.\18\ The NAC found that dual participation across the five
    states was quite rare affecting roughly 0.1 percent of SNAP
    participants. However, the establishment of NAC did prevent dual
    participation, and the evaluation provided insights into best practices
    for states to use the data match most effectively. The CBO estimated
    that this provision will reduce SNAP spending by $576 million from 2019
    to 2028.\19\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \18\ https://fns-prod.azureedge.us/sites/default/files/resource-
    files/nac-pilot-evaluation.pdf.
        \19\ https://www.ers.usda.gov/agriculture-improvement-act-of-2018-
    highlights-and-implications/nutrition/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In a 2018 press release, USDA wrote about the NAC stating, ``The
    NAC Strengthens SNAP integrity through the nationwide expansion of an
    interstate data match to prevent household receipt of benefits from
    more than one state and by requiring states to provide USDA with
    greater access to SNAP records for inspection and audit.''
    Subsequently, the 2018 Farm Bill required FNS to expand the NAC
    nationally to prevent duplicate simultaneous benefit issuance to the
    same individual in more than one state.
        The 2018 Farm Bill mandated all states be actively participating in
    the NAC by December 31, 2021. Unfortunately, in 2021, FNS unilaterally
    decided to ignore Congress' directive by directing the Government
    Services Administration (GSA) 18F unit to construct a new and unproven
    pilot. This decision has delayed the implementation of this essential
    tool until 2027, a delay of more than 6 years costing the taxpayers an
    estimated $2.5 billion when adjusted for inflation and increases due to
    the Thrifty Food Plan.\20\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \20\ The 2015 NAC Pilot report to Congress estimated up to $193.4
    million in annual savings. The Interim Final Rule cites a lower figure,
    the average of $114 million. The savings in the 2015 NAC Pilot report
    to Congress range from $53.8m to $193.4m, averaging $114m. Adjusted for
    inflation, the figures are then $67.8m, $243.7m, and $143.6m,
    respectively.
        Adjusted for inflation and increases to SNAP allotments through the
    Thrifty Food Plan, anticipated annual savings are currently up to
    $309.5 million per year. It can therefore be concluded that the
    decision to delay the roll-out of the farm bill mandate for the new and
    unproven NAC Pilot has cost the SNAP program approximately $1.85
    billion (or $2.5b adjusted for inflation at current rates). The
    Congressional Budget Office reported an estimated 10 year cost estimate
    savings (outlays) of $588 million; however, CBO did not factor in the
    decision to create a second NAC pilot or FNS' benefit increases via the
    Thrifty Food Plan.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        We find this delay irresponsible, and the reasoning provided is
    ludicrous. This invaluable tool to end duplicate participation,
    established by Congress and signed into law, was ignored without
    adequate reasoning or replacement. We find the timeline created by FNS
    to deliver the version of the NAC they requested to be developed by GSA
    18F to be a wholly unacceptable waste of resources.
        FNS issued an Interim Final Rule (IFR) on the newly commissioned
    NAC on October 3, 2022.\21\ The IFR references to technology do not
    take into considerations the improvements in technology, matching, and
    security implemented in the original NAC pilot since 2015. The original
    NAC pilot resolved matching data models currently impeding the 18F
    technology as described in Department updates to Congress (such as
    special characters, hyphens, etc.) and omits any referential data
    checks to ensure proper matching to identifiable individuals.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \21\ https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/nac.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Congressional inclusion of the NAC expansion and mandate was
    based entirely on the successful NAC Pilot and impressive return on
    investment savings. The ``new'' NAC ignores lessons learned, and
    contradicts best practices realized by states administering disaster
    (D-SNAP) programs. In fact, the lead state (Mississippi) in the NAC
    pilot was not even consulted. Further, the current 5 year roll-out of
    the proposed 18F NAC ignores the intent and establishment of the
    Partnership Fund for Program Integrity Innovation by the Obama
    Administration's Office of Management and Budget in 2010.
        A copy of the United Council on Welfare Fraud's response to the NAC
    Interim Final Rule is attached to the end of this testimony.
    Identity Verification
        Identity fraud, synthetic identity fraud, and account takeover are
    impacting all states. Our UCOWF conversations with states confirm the
    issue not being a one-off individual state or county SNAP agency
    problem. The issue has been demonstrated across all public assistance
    programs and exposed more broadly during the pandemic. SNAP is one of
    the last government assistance programs that does not conduct remote
    identity verifications.
        One State Unemployment Insurance agency found up to 500,000 bot
    attacks originating from transnational fraud rings in just 1 month. Why
    would identity thieves target SNAP? Well, there are several reasons.
        First, there are no controls in place. Despite Federal law
    requiring state agencies to verify an applicant's identity and other
    critical information prior to certifying the household to participate
    in SNAP, FNS issued a memorandum in 2019 giving states the option to
    use identity authentication tools. However, FNS provided over-
    burdensome conditions and mandated that applicants can opt-out of
    online identity checks.\22\ The justification is due to an
    interpretation that regulations only require a name, address, and
    signature--regulations that go back to the creation of the food stamp
    program.\23\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \22\ https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/identity-authentication-pilot-
    projects.
        \23\ https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-7/subtitle-B/chapter-II/
    subchapter-C/part-273#p-273.2(b)(1)(v).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        So [John Doe, homeless, and an `X'] is all that is required to
    apply for SNAP. No date of birth. No Social Security Number (SSN). No
    identification or driver's license number. This creates an
    administrative burden to states, creates churn and delays issuance of
    benefits, and as we know firsthand, provides fraudsters an open door to
    access the system.
        Yet eligibility requirements are clear.

              ``The state agency shall require that a household
            participating or applying for participation in SNAP provide the
            state agency with the social security number (SSN) of each
            household member or apply for one before certification. If
            individuals have more than one number, all numbers shall be
            required. The state agency shall explain to applicants and
            participants that refusal or failure without good cause to
            provide an SSN will result in disqualification of the
            individual for whom an SSN is not obtained.'' \24\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \24\ https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-7/subtitle-B/chapter-II/
    subchapter-C/part-273/subpart-C/section-273.6#p-273.6(a).

        FNS publicly provides this information to the public on their
    website.\25\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \25\ https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/facts.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Requiring the SSN on the application is commonsense and does not
    impose an additional condition of eligibility. Modernization of the
    regulations demand that this be addressed. Failing to include the SSN
    has a broader impact to program integrity and introduces waste, fraud,
    and abuse into the program. For example, anyone receiving Social
    Security Income in California is ineligible for SNAP--SSI payments have
    been specifically increased to include the value of SNAP.\26\ However,
    California does not require SSNs to apply or be certified for SNAP,
    making cross-program data checks extremely difficult--if they are done
    at all.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \26\ https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-7/subtitle-B/chapter-II/
    subchapter-C/part-273/subpart-G#p-273.20(a).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        But that single, mandatory eligibility requirement does not just
    impact California. Without SSNs, you cannot efficiently conduct
    mandatory data matches against the Electronic Disqualified Recipient
    System (eDRS, to check for disqualified and ineligible recipients),\27\
    the Social Security Administration Death Master File (DMF), or the
    Income Eligibility and Verification System (IEVS).\28\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \27\ https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-7/subtitle-B/chapter-II/
    subchapter-C/part-273/subpart-A/section-273.2#p-273.2(f)(11).
        \28\ https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-7/subtitle-B/chapter-II/
    subchapter-C/part-272/section-272.8#p-272.8(a).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Further, states cannot do duplicate participation checks under
    current regulations, which state:

              ``Each state agency shall establish a system to assure that
            no individual participates more than once in a month, in more
            than one jurisdiction, or in more than one household within the
            state in SNAP. To identify such individuals, the system shall
            use names and social security numbers at a minimum, and other
            identifiers such as birth dates or addresses as appropriate.
            [emphasis added]'' \29\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \29\ https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-7/subtitle-B/chapter-II/
    subchapter-C/part-272/section-272.4#p-272.4(e).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Without addressing these shortcomings, UCOWF fears that fraud will
    become the face of this program--not the assistance it provides for the
    overwhelming majority of law-abiding eligible recipients. Mandating
    identity verification that does not require opt-out, can be done in a
    way that aligns with best industry standards and provides benefits to
    eligible recipients more quickly, ensures program integrity, and
    increases access to the program with reduced administrative burden in
    identification requirements. We eagerly await modernization in
    application requirements.
        Second, the lack of identity verification tools is impacted by
    antiquated eligibility systems--state systems that lack modular human-
    centered design. The Urban Institute researched state modernization
    projects and the use of the $1.15 billion in additional SNAP
    administrative funding to help state agencies address these antiquated
    systems. Program Integrity was one of the authorized use cases to
    access these funds. 7 States listed Program Integrity initiatives in
    their use of funds (CT, MI, NE, NM, PA, UT, WA).\30\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \30\ https://www.urban.org/projects/exploring-states-snap-
    modernization-projects.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        FNS defines Program Integrity as, ``Improving stewardship of
    Federal money by reducing recipient fraud, reducing retailer fraud,
    ensuring accurate eligibility determinations, and reducing improper
    payments.'' UCOWF believes accurate eligibility determinations is
    primarily an administrative function--doing your job correctly.
    Reviewing the use of ARPA funds, only two states had legitimate anti-
    fraud initiatives--Pennsylvania (resources for the Inspector General)
    and Utah (asset testing/verification).
        Third, SNAP is a target for identity thieves due to the siloing and
    restrictions on recipient data sharing. Regulations, which still exist
    in a pre-9/11 condition, spell out the strict sharing of information of
    SNAP household information.\31\ You cannot share information with law
    enforcement for exigent circumstances, including the preservation of
    life. Nor can you conduct data matches with the National Center for
    Missing and Exploited Children to locate kids currently in the system.
    And we've all heard about the stories of SNAP funds going to
    terrorists, who refer to the program as the ``Jihadist's Allowance.''
    \32\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \31\ https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-7/subtitle-B/chapter-II/
    subchapter-C/part-272/section-272.1#p-272.1(c).
        \32\ ``EBTerrorism: How Fraud Ridden SNAP Funds Terror, Fails at
    Enforcement and Wastes Taxpayer Money'' (https://thedrilldown.com/wp-
    content/uploads/2018/10/2018_GAI_SNAP_
    FRAUD_TERROR.pdf).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        There are no prohibitions against anyone on the terrorist watch
    list or no-fly list receiving SNAP--and Homeland Security is prohibited
    from accessing recipient information. Had this not been the case, the
    government would have been able to obtain information on the 9/11
    hijackers--but that never happened. Addressing data sharing in today's
    world climate provides a safer nation, and efforts to combat this can
    only be viewed as anti-American. Common sense reform can balance the
    protection of personal information against any shortcomings.
        Physical and digital identity verifications that go beyond
    knowledge-based authentication questions are private sector best
    practices. While we strongly encourage and endorse stronger program
    integrity guidelines, we are reticent as it relates to facial
    recognition technology and the potential bias that currently exists in
    the technology. Asset verifications, wage and employment verifications,
    and incarceration checks are readily available. Many states are
    introducing state legislation to fill the lack of Federal efforts.\33\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \33\ https://legiscan.com/IA/bill/SF494/2023.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Use of both digital and physical identity referential data allows
    state agencies to quickly identify risky applications (such as
    originating from foreign countries) as well as quickly identifying
    known-GOOD applicants. Effective identity authentication reduces the
    time to get benefits to eligible applicants, resulting in lower
    administrative costs.
    ``EBT Skimming''
        Recent news articles related to fraud within public assistance
    programs (SNAP, TANF, WIC) have focused on ``EBT Skimming.'' Both FNS/
    ACF and individual SNAP/TANF agencies have issued numerous client
    education materials aimed at informing genuine needy clients as to how
    to spot a card skimmer. Yet the epidemic continues, and it goes much
    farther than fake devices placed on a credit card point-of-sale device
    to capture EBT card numbers and PINs. Skimmers have historically and
    predominately been found on ATM and gas pumps targeting credit and
    debit cards. Recently, this trend has expanded to large supermarkets
    and big box stores; unfortunately, FNS does not monitor transactions
    for fraud at these retailers. And while guidance has been issued on
    replacing stolen benefits, nothing is being done to prevent it.\34\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \34\ https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/replacement-snap-benefits-
    consolidated-appropriations-act-2023.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        SNAP recipients are having their benefits stolen and drained by
    fraudsters who gain access to the account in what is commonly referred
    to as ``Account Take-Over'' Account Take-Over (ATO) has been an issue
    for decades; anyone who has had funds suddenly drained from a debit
    card knows this. Credit card companies notify clients of suspicious
    transactions and monitor oversea purchases. Card skimming devices are
    but one tool in the arsenal of fraudsters looking to make an easy buck.
    But now it's hitting the most vulnerable in society. Texas recently has
    directed recipients to change their PIN regularly and to freeze/
    unfreeze their card to prevent ATOs.\35\ California, long struggling
    with the issue, even provided numbers related to the depth of this
    problem: $84 million in anticipated 2023 losses just for TANF in
    CalWorks.\36\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \35\ https://www.kxan.com/news/texas/hhsc-warns-of-increased-
    reports-of-snap-tanf-recipients-being-targets-of-fraud/.
        \36\ https://calmatters.org/california-divide/2023/01/calfresh-
    calworks-thefts/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Call Centers remain the number one target of opportunity for
    identity thieves as they can hide behind the anonymity of (spoofed)
    phone numbers to social engineer and scam call takers. Due to high call
    volumes, staff shortfalls, and the expense it takes to identify
    callers, operators continue to fall back on Name, DOB, SSN, and a
    validating question (address, name of a child on account, etc.).
    Unfortunately, every identity fraudster has this information on hand.
    Call centers remain a major vulnerability where clients (and
    fraudsters) can change account information, change addresses, order new
    cards, or offset PINs. Improving call center identity solutions and a
    federally mandated standard for states and EBT vendors is sorely
    needed.
        Customer Service Portals have been critical to providing enhanced
    access to recipients to check balances, reset PINs, get balance
    inquiries, or confirm when benefits will be loaded onto a card. Online
    portals lack sufficient safeguards that can confirm the person
    accessing the portal is the client. Interactive Voice Response phone
    systems (IVRs) commonly only require the last four digits of an SSN, a
    DOB, and sometimes a case number to access client accounts or to
    determine benefit balances. Few states check the phone number in the
    IVR, but no (known) state agencies check for spoofed numbers, Voice
    Over Internet Protocols (VOIPs), or SIM swaps.
        Online identity verification still presents the best opportunity to
    prevent synthetic identities in the U.S. banking system (estimated at
    five million) and to verify legitimate recipients accessing or applying
    for benefits. It remains the best method to stop EBT skimming/ATO.
        Additional methods of ATO impacting the SNAP program include card
    tumbling, third party apps that claim to provide additional coupons or
    assistance, common PIN numbers, cloned point-of-sale (POS) devices, and
    bot attacks. Bot Attacks are on the rise as the unemployment insurance
    industry discovered during the PHE. International fraud rings, criminal
    groups and state sponsored terror groups were responsible for massive
    bot attacks, whether it is only several hundred a day, or millions as
    some states discovered.
        Without safeguards, automated bot scripts slamming states and
    county application sites are creating massive backlogs in requests for
    information, referrals to call centers, and delays in receiving
    benefits. And worse, the bot attacks are combining the tactics above
    and create a fail-proof way of ATOs. Every state with an online
    customer service portal or application must have bot-detection tools.
    To our knowledge, none do--all must rely upon EBT vendors for
    assistance.
        Instead of relying upon a hungry, marginalized SNAP recipient being
    responsible to change their PINS monthly, freezing their PIN, or opting
    to prohibit out of state transactions,\37\ Congress must demand FNS
    enact measures to stop ATO. A common-sense start would be for states to
    turn off Out of State (OOS) transactions and allow recipients to change
    it if circumstances require it. Two free refills only encourage
    otherwise legitimate households to traffic (or empty) their accounts
    and then falsely claim they were victimized.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \37\ https://fns-prod.azureedge.us/sites/default/files/resource-
    files/ebt-card-skimming-prevention.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        This crime of opportunity is made even more attractive to
    fraudsters when you consider SNAP High Balances. UCOWF is aware of EBT
    balances exceeding $15,000 in every state.
    Retailer Fraud
        Retailer integrity is a known issue, and UCOWF is not here to
    criticize FNS for its handling of the retailer process, nor on the USDA
    Office of Inspector General's gross understaffing issues. However,
    modernization of SNAP requires an overhaul of the retailer integrity
    processes currently in place. This isn't new--a 2019 GAO report found
    as much as $4.7 billion in retailer trafficking fraud (back when SNAP
    expenditures were $64 billion per year).\38\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \38\ https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-19-167.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        FNS lacks the authority to do any effective business integrity/
    oversight of SNAP retailers. The most recent retailer trafficking data
    showed 18-20% of all small businesses trafficked SNAP. Some of these
    businesses are represented by lobbying firms pushing for hot food
    allowances. Effective oversight of the 250,000 SNAP approved retailers
    is sorely needed, particularly as they expand approved businesses to
    sell benefits online.
        While we addressed the lack of SSN mandates in recipients, the
    problem is far worse with retailers. In a January 2017 USDA OIG report,
    3,394 stores were found to have deceased owners and 193 retailers
    approved using PII for minors (under 18 years old). FNS addressed this
    barrier, stating, ``FNS recognizes the value in conducting a DMF match
    on an on-going basis. As such, should FNS be granted future authority
    to use SSN for matching purposes, FNS will match to the SSA DMF using
    SSN on an on-going basis.'' \39\ To date, FNS does not verify retailer
    submitted SSNs nor match against the SSA DMF due to this statutory
    restriction. Fixing this would require modification to the Social
    Security Act.\40\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \39\ https://usdaoig.oversight.gov/sites/default/files/reports/
    2023-06/27901-0002-13.pdf.
        \40\ Section 205(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I) of the Social Security Act
    (codified at 42 U.S.C.  405(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I) and implemented at 7 CFR
     278.1(q)(3)).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        States are given no input on retailers operating in their own
    state. FNS does not check to see if a business is even licensed (and
    paying taxes), if they have been debarred from other programs (such as
    state lottery), or if the business owner has criminal background and/or
    active arrest warrants at the local/state level. One of my UCOWF
    colleagues refers to FNS retailer oversight as ``dumping their trash on
    our lawns and then complaining about the smell.'' But he's correct in
    that the failure to provide effective and efficient Federal oversight
    on retailers shifts the burden on states to chase after every person
    who committed fraud and abuse against SNAP rules.
        Either allow states input on who can operate as a SNAP retailer in
    their jurisdiction or give FNS the authority to do what is required.
    Conversely, if modifications of the Social Security Act prove too
    cumbersome to give FNS the needed authority, at least require advance
    notice and time for the states to conduct appropriate reviews. This is
    not a new issue--a July 2013 USDA OIG report repeated an earlier
    recommendation to perform background checks, and FNS agreed to initiate
    rulemaking to require applicants to provide a ``self-initiated''
    background check. This never occurred--however, if it did, it would
    only be another self-attested verification by the retailer applicant.
    Today, retailers can submit forged/Photoshopped information to meet
    requirements, yet FNS lacks authority to conduct any meaningful
    oversight.\41\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \41\ https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45147/6, page
    54.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Better retailer controls would reduce recipient fraud. Failure to
    address retailer integrity has a massive impact on states. An
    independent survey of 76 state and county SNAP agencies found that it
    costs up to $4.40 for every dollar of SNAP fraud.\42\ It's time FNS
    cleaned up this mess.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \42\ https://risk.lexisnexis.com/insights-resources/research/true-
    cost-of-fraud-study-for-snap.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Conflicting Regulation Language
        There are specific regulations that continue to frustrate
    investigators' efforts and have required FNS to issue clarification
    memos. Unfortunately, the clarification memos create confusion between
    states and FNS Regional Offices, and UCOWF has been asked by members to
    address several of these here.
        Regulations state, ``Except as provided under paragraph (B)(1)(iii)
    of this section, an individual found to have made a fraudulent
    statement or representation with respect to the identity or place of
    residence of the individual in order to receive multiple SNAP benefits
    simultaneously shall be ineligible to participate in the Program for a
    period of 10 years.'' \43\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \43\ https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-7/subtitle-B/chapter-II/
    subchapter-C/part-273/subpart-F/section-273.16#p-273.16(b)(5).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        FNS guidance in Attachment 13 to Policy Letter 13-02 states, ``The
    real issue is whether or not the client fraudulently represented their
    situation or if they made an innocent mistake. If it is a mistake with
    no intent to commit fraud and they thought their case file in the first
    state was closed, then there is no penalty. If they fraudulently
    represented their circumstances by claiming two addresses in order to
    get benefits in two places, then it is duplicate participation, and the
    penalty is 10 years. It does not matter that the names and addresses
    are not correct when the intent is to collect two benefit payments
    (duplicate participation). The 1 year penalty is not a factor in this
    situation.''
        The clarification is not uniformly used; and in fact, as part of an
    integrity audit, one regional office demanded a state reduce the 10
    year penalty issued in the Administrative Disqualification Hearing
    decision to a 1 year penalty.
        Regulations define claims against households and state; ``A
    recipient claim is an amount owed because benefits that are overpaid,''
    and, ``This claim is a Federal debt subject to this and other
    regulations governing Federal debts . . . The state agency must
    establish and collect any claim by following these regulations.'' \44\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \44\ https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-7/subtitle-B/chapter-II/
    subchapter-C/part-273/subpart-F/section-273.18#p-273.18(a).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In conflict with these two regulations, FNS issued Attachment 4 to
    Policy Letter 89-03 that dictates, ``Categorical eligibility is based
    on a household receiving or being authorized to receive AFDC or
    Supplemental Security Income payments. The household's eligibility for
    these payments is not relevant for food stamp purposes. Therefore,
    since the household was correctly determined to be categorically
    eligible based on receipt of AFDC, there is no over issuance for food
    stamp purposes and no claim is established.''
        The FNS policy guidance directly conflicts with regulations and has
    contributed to confusion and weakened program integrity.
    In Summary
        Investigators detect, prevent, and prosecute fraud so taxpayers do
    not lose faith in this critical program. It is an ugly truth, that if
    there is a source of money or benefits, people will try to steal it. It
    is the dedication of every welfare fraud investigator, working on
    behalf of the taxpayers, that provides the backbone of SNAP and
    continually upholds program integrity.
        The United Council on Welfare Fraud can only do so much. SNAP
    integrity is under-funded, understaffed, and widely ignored. We
    adamantly disagree with USDA FNS' unbending 15 year assertion that the
    fraud rate in SNAP is less than 1%. The above information references
    the wide-ranging attacks that continue to hit SNAP at all flanks; and
    yet, with all the different fraud schemes that continue to erode SNAP,
    USDA FNS perpetuates the message that SNAP is the only Federal program
    with a negligible fraud rate.
        States need funding for additional personnel to adequately staff
    fraud units at all levels. States need funding to access and leverage
    technology to confront the sophisticated fraudsters who victimize
    recipients. We need common sense regulations that prevent fraud and
    work towards its elimination instead of continually frustrating
    investigations with antiquated rules and incongruent application.
    Deficiencies in program integrity have been a long-standing issue not
    addressed in past farm bills and largely ignored by the USDA. We cannot
    afford to continue to kick the can 4 more years down the road. On
    behalf of the front-line workers across the nation and on behalf of the
    United Council on Welfare Fraud, I implore you to fix these issues now.
        We appreciate the opportunity to address these issues and the
    invitation to appear before Congress today.
        Thank you.
    Additional Antiquated Regulations Requiring Farm Bill Modernization
        UCOWF members from across the nation have shared concerns about
    outdated regulations. We are sharing these issues and suggested
    remedies:

       Recipients are permitted to refuse to cooperate with an
            administrative fraud investigation. Yet, failure to cooperate
            with a Quality Control review will result in recipients being
            removed from the SNAP program. Subjects refusing to participate
            in administrative fraud investigations or respond to questions
            should be removed from the program. https://www.ecfr.gov/
            current/title-7/subtitle-B/chapter-II/subchapter-C/part-275/
            subpart-C/#p-275.12(g)(1)(ii). The same issue extends to
            administrative hearings. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-7/
            subtitle-B/chapter-II/subchapter-C/part-273/subpart-F/section-
            273.16#p-273.16(e)(2)(iii)

       Recipients are given Miranda Rights, even in non-custodial
            administrative investigations. Miranda, as the Supreme Court
            has ruled, is for criminal interviews and interrogations of
            persons in law enforcement custody or control. https://
            www.ecfr.gov/current/title-7/subtitle-B/chapter-II/subchapter-
            C/part-273/subpart-F/section-273.16#p-273.16(f)(1)(ii)(B)

       Third Party Processors are enabling fraudulent activity.
            Collusion between dishonest retailers and TPPs have been
            documented by the USDA OIG. Due to past farm bills, FNS no
            longer bears any responsibility for oversight of the TPPs and
            Point of Sale (POS) devices. That responsibility is given to
            the retailer. As such, TPP POS devices do not transmit
            geolocation data. FNS cannot reliably determine the physical
            location of devices involved in SNAP transactions and balance
            inquiries--they are anywhere in the world. Congress is
            encouraged to address this as states can no longer say benefits
            are being used in the location FNS has approved, including
            globally.

            ``SNAP-authorized retailers need to conduct their own research
                and due diligence when selecting a TPP and should review
                the cost of leasing or purchasing equipment and services to
                make the best choice for their business.'' https://fns-
                prod.azureedge.us/sites/default/files/resource-files/SNAP-
                EBT-TPP-Information.pdf

       Fraudulent Retailers are not added to the Federal System for
            Award Management website by FNS for debarment despite
            Presidential Executive Order 12549 and 7 U.S. Code 2209(j). See
            2 CFR 180, 2 CFR 417, and https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/
            retailer-sanctions-debarment-disqualified-firms.

       Retailers removed from the program are not added to the
            electronic disqualified recipient system (eDRS). Business
            owners should be disqualified from being a recipient for a
            period for violating SNAP rules, same as a recipient.

       There are no regulations prohibiting a retail owner from
            receiving personal SNAP benefits and spending them in their own
            stores.

       Retailers should be immediately suspended when
            administrative or criminal activity is alleged, like the
            Medicaid program. Fraud is not an entitlement for businesses.

       Disaster SNAP guidelines have not been updated in nearly a
            decade (2014), are woefully outdated in policy and practice,
            and should be codified in Federal regulations.

       Self-attestation is the general rule when it comes to
            verifying eligibility criteria and should be reviewed for
            consistency and relevance in a modernized SNAP program.

       FNS currently prohibits states to automatically deny an
            applicant when they self-declare information that makes them
            ineligible. For example, if an applicant declares their monthly
            income is higher than the limit, states must contact the
            applicant to verify/ double-check that the information provided
            by the applicant is in fact true before denying the
            application. This is an unnecessary workload for state
            eligibility staff and is expensive to notice applicants who
            have already self-declared themselves ineligible.

       FNS must mandate that states protect online application and
            public portals are safeguarded from bot-attacks.

       FNS has information on all individuals who have been
            disqualified from the food assistance program in the Electronic
            Disqualified Recipient System (eDRS), and they share this data
            with all states; however, FNS does not allow states to act on
            the information. States are required to double check with the
            state where the disqualification originated and verify the data
            to determine that all processes were completed correctly in the
            originating state. As states are required to upload accurate
            disqualification data, this is an unnecessary administrative
            burden for eligibility staff who spend time researching and
            attempting to communicate with other state staff to reverify
            the data--yet FNS accepts this data without question. FNS
            places a huge burden on states to scrub this data, but they
            accept it at face value from states. eDRS data should be
            considered Verified Upon Receipt, and any clients who feel it
            is not accurate still have Due Process procedures in Fair
            Hearing requests.

       FNS does not allow states to close a SNAP case or
            application when they receive undeliverable returned mail
            unless the state chooses to act on all changes reported to the
            state. It's an all or nothing policy. Once approved, clients no
            longer must report most household circumstances unless it
            adversely affected their benefit eligibility--they were
            approved and frozen for a 6 month certification at a set
            benefit amount. Not having to report an address change, even to
            another state, is included in that policy but should be
            addressed as a stand-alone regulation. Failure to report an
            address change does not adversely affect a benefit amount;
            recipients should be required to report their residency since
            states are seriously challenged in their ability to remain in
            contact with its recipients/clients. The policy also leads to
            fraud and over-payments when recipients receive benefits in
            more than one state at a time. Additionally, FNS does not allow
            the state to use Post Office information to determine (in)valid
            addresses. FNS requires the state to send correspondence to
            applicants/recipients to known bad addresses that ultimately
            get returned--a waste of postage and state administrative
            resources.

       Eligibility staff receive numerous data exchanges on a
            daily, weekly, and monthly frequency. Many data exchanges are
            not verified upon receipt and many times contain outdated
            information, i.e., Prisoner Information exchanges. The 2014
            Farm Bill requires states to check the National Directory of
            New Hires (NDNH) before approval which also has a cost; states
            must pay $30,000 per year or more for this marginally
            beneficial data. The information received from the NDNH is
            often no longer relevant to the recipient's current
            circumstances and/or is discovered in the interview. The
            requirement for staff to process these data exchange does not
            have a beneficial impact on the recipient/applicant's case, has
            a direct cost to the state by invoice, and costs the state's
            precious staff time to research without any realization of
            return.
    United Council on Welfare Fraud Comments on NAC Interim Final Rule
    December 2, 2022

      Chief Maribelle Balbes,
      State Administration Branch,
      Program Accountability and Administration Division,
      Food & Nutrition Service, USDA,
      Alexandria, VA

        Dear Chief Maribelle Balbes:

        The United Council on Welfare Fraud (UCOWF) appreciates the
    opportunity to comment on the USDA Food and Nutrition Service
    (Department) second's posted Interim Final Rule (IFR) on the National
    Accuracy Clearinghouse (NAC) (Federal Register Vol. 87, No. 190, dated
    October 3, 2022).
        UCOWF is a national professional organization of investigators,
    administrators and claims and recovery specialists who are on the
    frontlines combating welfare fraud in our public assistance programs.
    Our members come from across the country at the local, county and state
    agency level who work every day to protect the integrity of these
    critical programs and safeguard taxpayer resources. In addition to
    reinforcing public confidence and ensuring benefits are not diverted
    from our society's neediest citizens, we strive to bring a cohesive
    voice to these efforts and share best practices in the prevention,
    detection and prosecution of welfare fraud.
        It is with a clear goal of enhanced program integrity that UCOWF
    shares the following comments and concerns on the 28-page IFR.

      1.  The intent of the Agriculture Act of 2018 (``farm bill'')
                creation of the NAC has been ignored. The delays in
                implementing the NAC, as directed by the farm bill, result
                in significant waste by the Department.

      2.  The proposed IFR limits administrative flexibility granted to
                state agencies, fails to consider best practices currently
                in place, and conflicts with existing laws and regulations.

        First, the intent of the 2018 Farm Bill duplicate participation
    mandate to the Department to implement the original NAC pilot program
    has been ignored and position the elimination of duplicate
    participation as a new initiative. Instead, the Department created
    justifications that codify legal interpretations of existing
    regulations into this IFR.
        The ``new'' NAC currently under production amounts to ``recreating
    the wheel'' and delays the mandate of full nationwide implementation by
    6 years (from 2021 to 2027). These delays by the Department will result
    in unacceptable waste, considering:

       The savings in the original NAC Pilot report to Congress
            range from $53.8m to $193.4m, averaging $114m.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/nac-evaluation-final-report
    National Accuracy Clearinghouse Evaluation, Final Report (Oct. 2015).
    See also the Congressional Budget Office 10 year cost estimate savings
    (outlays) of $588 million referenced by the Center on Budget and Policy
    Priorities, https://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/6-11-
    18fa.pdf. Adjusted for inflation using the savings based on 2014 data,
    $1 in 2014 costs $1.26 in 2022. Numbers are then $67.8, $243.7m, and
    $143.6m, respectfully. https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/.

       Adjusted for inflation and increases to SNAP allotments
            through the Thrifty Food Plan, anticipated annual savings are
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            currently up to $309.5 million per year.

        It can therefore be concluded that the decision to delay the roll-
    out of the farm bill mandate for this new and unproven NAC totals
    approximately $1.85 billion. Adjusting for compounding inflation at
    current rates brings the total outlay waste from this decision and IFR
    to an approximately forecasted $2.5 billion by FY 2028.
        The 2018 Farm Bill did not intend for the Department to introduce
    waste or to ``start over.'' \2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ https://www.congress.gov/congressional-report/117th-congress/
    senate-report/34/1 S. Rept. 117-3421 November 2022, p. 106, states:

          ``The Committee continues to support the implementation of the
    National Accuracy Clearing-
      house (NAC). The Committee directs the Department to move forward
    with the NAC to prevent
      duplicative issuance of SNAP benefits and improve program integrity.
    When the USDA imple-
      ments and expands the NAC, the Committee urges the Department to
    allow states to use a
      blended workforce including contractors and subcontractors that have
    the capability to use
      complex match technology with multiple data elements and administer a
    robust appeals proc-
      ess to ensure individuals are not automatically removed from
    receiving benefits.''
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Section 4011 of the 2018 Farm Bill require the IFR ``incorporate
    best practices and lessons learned from the pilot program.'' The IFR
    fails at this requirement. The IFR references to the original NAC pilot
    do not take into considerations improvements in technology made to
    security, workflows, or matching that have been implemented since the
    2015 report to Congress.\3\ Further, recommendations from the original
    pilot were ignored and neither the lead state (Mississippi) nor
    technological experts involved in the original NAC pilot were utilized
    or consulted as recommended to Congress.\4\

        \3\ National Accuracy Clearinghouse Evaluation, Final Report (Oct.
    2015).
        \4\ Ibid., page 6.

              ``The five NAC pilot states have implemented the tool in
            significantly differently ways and have realized different
            levels of success. Those that have achieved superior outcomes
            provide a set of best practices that should be considered as
            use of the NAC continues in the current states and as expansion
            beyond the pilot is explored. Furthermore, the pilot states
            have learned lessons that should be heeded by any state--
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            current or future--intending to use the NAC.''

        The IFR conflicts with current regulations and codifies legal
    interpretation more appropriate in Department guidance memorandums.

       The language and justifications for rule modifications and
            creation in this IFR apply to Simplified Reporting (SR) and
            assume all states will choose SR as a state administrative
            option.

       The original waiver used by the original NAC pilot was only
            necessary due to FNS legal interpretation that the state-to-
            state dual participation checks are not Verified Upon
            Receipt.\5\ The proposed IFR and workflows attempt to consider
            a duplicate application ``unclear information.'' Instead, this
            IFR would best be constructed to address deficiencies in the SR
            flexibilities.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ The IFR states, ``The existing regulations prevent states from
    contact with the acting on NAC data matches before their next scheduled
    household, so states participating in the NAC pilot operate under an
    administrative waiver ( 272.3(c); 17(b)(1) of the Food and Nutrition
    Act of 2008).''

       Current regulations  272.4(e) already address state
            monitoring of duplicate participation, which data can be used,
            and that monitoring can be done at times determined by the
            state agency. Proposed modifications to Rule that further
            reduce state flexibility and best practices are improper. This
            IFR also ignores questions on nearly all state agency SNAP
            applications that specifically asks the applicant if they are
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            currently receiving SNAP benefits.

       Identity information is provided by the household. Legal
            interpretation that considers state to state duplicate
            participation checks as verified information (verified upon
            receipt) should be considered, making the majority of this IFR
            unnecessary.

       The IFR concerns with technical security in sharing or
            sending applicant provided SSN information can be resolved
            without the creation of this IFR and conflict with other FNS
            practices (such as sending and storing PII in eDRS, information
            transmitted to EBT vendors, matches with Treasury Offset
            Program, the CMS Federally Facilitated Marketplace (Medicaid
            Hub), SSA Prisoner and Death Master File exchanges, as well as
            other public assistance program best practices (ex.
            Unemployment Insurance Integrity Data Hub).

       This IFR contains references to a current regulation that
            does not exist; see  273.12(c)(9).

        Finally, the administrative burden to state agencies do not address
    the ``Big Bang'' or address state agencies currently implementing
    duplicate participation checks under the NAC pilot.
        For the above referenced concerns, the UCOWF feels these proposed
    regulations should be withdrawn and the Department reconsider their
    decision on rolling out what can only be viewed as another (unproven)
    pilot.
                Sincerely,

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Andrew Petitt, President,
    United Council on Welfare Fraud.

        The Chairman. Ms. Royal, thank you so much. And now we will
    proceed, and--Dr. Rachidi, please begin when you are ready.

            STATEMENT OF ANGELA K. RACHIDI, Ph.D., RESEARCH
            FELLOW IN POVERTY STUDIES, AMERICAN ENTERPRISE
                      INSTITUTE, WASHINGTON, D.C.

        Dr. Rachidi. Thank you. Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member
    Scott, and Members of the Committee, thank you for the
    opportunity to testify today on this important issue. My name
    is Angela Rachidi, and I am a Senior Fellow on Poverty and
    Opportunity at the American Enterprise Institute. I am also a
    former Deputy Commissioner for the New York City Department of
    Social Services, where, for over a decade, I oversaw the
    agency's policy research and evaluation, including of SNAP. As
    this Committee considers a farm bill for 2023, I wanted to
    highlight two key issues as it relates to SNAP, employment and
    health.
        In the course of my research, three key themes have
    emerged. First, consistent and sustained employment is one of
    the most crucial ingredients for reducing poverty and
    increasing upward mobility. Second, poor health is one of the
    largest barriers to employment for low-income Americans. And
    third, SNAP's lack of dietary guidelines often leaves its
    recipients in poor health, limiting their ability to work and
    escape poverty.
        Let me begin by first acknowledging the ways in which the
    recently enacted Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (Pub. L.
    118-5) has improved the employment prospects of SNAP
    recipients. The Act strengthened SNAP's work requirements by
    extending them to more working-age adults. It also added, as a
    new stated purpose to the program, to help SNAP recipients find
    employment. But Congress can do more.
        SNAP should be helping people find employment, not
    discouraging it. Employment offers financial and non-financial
    benefits to individuals and the broader economy. As last
    month's jobs report showed, the U.S. continues to see strong
    job growth and low unemployment rates, but businesses continue
    to struggle to find workers. Safety net programs such as SNAP
    should support the broader economy by encouraging, not
    discouraging, work.
        Yet, SNAP participants have very low employment rates. In a
    recent report my AEI colleague, Thomas O'Rourke, and I found
    that the employment to population ratio among non-disabled SNAP
    participants without children, what we typically think of as
    ABAWDs, has hovered between 15 and 30 percent since at least
    1996. Our research also found that the composition of SNAP has
    shifted toward the childless. For example, in 1996, the share
    of prime age SNAP household heads with children outnumbered
    those without children three to one, but today the ratio is 1.8
    to 1. During this same time, SNAP expenditures have increased
    five-fold in real dollars.
        A longitudinal look at employment rates among ABAWDs paints
    an equally concerning picture. Based on my research, using
    longitudinal data from the State of Wisconsin, I found that
    quarterly employment rates among ABAWDs were consistently below
    40 percent, even though \2/3\ of them had employment at some
    point in the year. This raises concerns about the ability of
    SNAP to support consistent and stable employment. Congress can
    help fix this problem by further strengthening SNAP's work
    requirements, including tightening the rules for waivers of
    ABAWD work rules and evaluating work requirements in other
    populations.
        The second point I want to make relates to nutrition and
    health. SNAP participants display very concerning health
    outcomes. In a recent analysis of national health data, I found
    that, in 2018, 65 percent of older SNAP adults had ever been
    diagnosed with diet-related disease, and 42 percent were obese,
    rates much higher than other groups of Americans not receiving
    SNAP. SNAP contributes to these problems because it contains no
    nutritional standards, and the data show that SNAP participants
    spend a large amount of their benefits on non-nutritious foods,
    such as sugary beverages and prepared desserts, which obviously
    contribute to poor health.
        There is bipartisan support to strengthen the nutrition
    aspects of SNAP. Congress can do this in the farm bill. They
    should make improving diet quality a core SNAP objective,
    require the USDA to measure diet quality among SNAP households,
    and track and publish the foods purchased with SNAP benefits.
    Congress should also establish nutrition standards in SNAP,
    similar to those in other Federal nutrition assistance
    programs. Congress should also impose common sense restrictions
    on SNAP purchases, disallowing purchases of sugary beverages,
    as the National Commission on Hunger recommended doing in 2015.
        To close, part of SNAP's stated purpose reads: ``The
    intention to raise levels of nutrition among low-income
    households.'' The new added purpose is to assist low-income
    adults in obtaining employment and increasing their earnings.
    My testimony today clearly shows that SNAP is falling short in
    meeting its purpose as it relates to nutrition and employment.
    However, Congress has an opportunity to fix its shortcomings
    through the farm bill. Thank you, and I look forward to
    answering your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Rachidi follows:]

      Prepared Statement of Angela K. Rachidi, Ph.D., Research Fellow in
        Poverty Studies, American Enterprise Institute, Washington, D.C.
    The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Toward Better Employment
            and Health Outcomes
        Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Scott, and Members of the
    Agriculture Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this
    important issue. My name is Angela Rachidi and I am a Senior Fellow on
    poverty and opportunity at the American Enterprise Institute, where I
    have spent the past several years researching policies aimed at
    reducing poverty and increasing employment for low-income families.
    Before I joined AEI, I was a Deputy Commissioner for the New York City
    Department of Social Services, where for more than a decade I oversaw
    the agency's policy research, including evaluating the Supplemental
    Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP.
        As this Committee considers a farm bill for 2023, I wanted to
    highlight two key issues as it relates to SNAP: employment and health.
    I have spent much of my career researching the Federal Government's
    safety net programs and identifying policies aimed at helping low-
    income families achieve the type of opportunity and social mobility
    that every American deserves. In the course of my research, three key
    themes have emerged. First, consistent and sustained employment is one
    of the most crucial ingredients for reducing poverty and increasing
    upward mobility, along with family structure. Second, poor health is
    one of the largest barriers to employment for low-income Americans.
    Third, SNAP's lack of dietary guidelines often leaves its recipients in
    poor health, preventing them from working and escaping poverty.
        Let me begin by acknowledging the ways in which the recently
    enacted Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 has improved the employment
    prospects of SNAP recipients. The Act strengthened SNAP's work
    requirements by extending the work expectation to more working-age
    adults. It also added as a new stated purpose the program: ``To assist
    low-income adults in obtaining employment and increasing their
    earnings.'' If SNAP is to accomplish its core goal of supporting
    Americans in their path out of poverty, emphasizing the importance of
    employment is an integral first step.
        Employment must be a clear goal of SNAP for two reasons. First,
    employment provides the only realistic path for low-income households
    to escape poverty and move up the income ladder. As we learned from
    welfare reform in 1996, when government assistance programs add an
    employment expectation, benefit recipients respond by going to work and
    improving their well-being. Second, low levels of labor force
    participation and high numbers of job openings suggest that there are
    ample jobs for all Americans. The latest jobs report showed strong job
    growth and the national unemployment rate remains below four percent.
    However, it also showed a labor force participation rate far below
    levels from a decade ago as older Americans have exited the labor force
    and prime-age workers have failed to pick up the slack.\1\ The
    implication is that the U.S. labor market needs more workers; and
    safety net programs such as SNAP must encourage, not discourage, labor
    force participation.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Jeffrey Sparshott, ``Behind Rise in Unemployment, Job Market Is
    Really Strong,'' Wall Street Journal, June 2, 2023, https://
    www.wsj.com/articles/mixed-signals-in-u-s-jobs-report-a57b18f
    d?mod=economy_more_pos1.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Despite the benefits of employment to individuals and the broader
    economy, work-capable SNAP participants have very low employment rates,
    partly because SNAP disincentivizes work, as research has shown.\2\ In
    a recent report, Thomas O'Rourke and I analyzed SNAP Quality Control
    data to document the employment rate among different groups of adult
    SNAP participants. We found that the employment-to-population ratio
    among non-disabled SNAP participants without dependents--often called
    ABAWDs--has hovered between 15 and 30 percent over time.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Hilary Williamson Hoynes and Diane Whitmore Schazenbach, ``Work
    Incentives and the Food Stamp Program,'' (working paper, National
    Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA, July 2010), https://
    www.nber.org/papers/w16198.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In the very strong labor market of 2019 (the most recent year of
    data), 30 percent of non-disabled SNAP participants without dependents
    between age 18-49--the ABAWD population--worked while receiving SNAP;
    among non-disabled, childless 50-64 year olds receiving SNAP, only 24
    percent worked.\3\ A 2018 report by the Council of Economic Advisors
    analyzed household survey data and found that a slightly higher share
    of SNAP participants worked while receiving SNAP, but even their
    analysis suggested that 50 percent or fewer worked. The discrepancies
    between administrative data and survey data can either be due to
    misreporting on surveys or a failure on the part of participants to
    disclose earnings to SNAP agencies.\4\ Either way, employment levels
    remain very low among non-disabled SNAP participants without children.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Angela Rachidi and Thomas O'Rourke, ``Promoting Mobility
    Through SNAP: Toward Better Health and Employment Outcomes,'' American
    Enterprise Institute, May 1, 2023, https://www.aei.org/research-
    products/report/promoting-mobility-through-snap-toward-better-health-
    and-employment-outcomes/.
        \4\ The Council of Economic Advisors, ``Expanding Work Requirements
    in Non-cash welfare Programs,'' July 2018, https://
    trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Expanding-Work-
    Requirements-in-Non-Cash-Welfare-Programs.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Figure 1. Percentage of Non-disabled SNAP Recipients Employed by Group,
            1996-2019

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              Source: ``Promoting Mobility Through SNAP: Toward Better
            Health and Employment Outcomes,'' American Enterprise
            Institute, May 1, 2023.

        We might be less concerned about very low employment rates among
    prime-age, work-capable SNAP recipients if their share of SNAP
    expenditures were shrinking over time. But our research also found that
    the share of SNAP adults who are capable of work--meaning childless,
    non-disabled recipients--has grown over time. For example, in 1996, the
    share of SNAP household heads age 18-49 with children outnumbered those
    without children three to one, but by 2019, the ratio was 1.8 adults
    with children to every one household head without children. During this
    same time, SNAP expenditures have increased five-fold in real dollars
    due to higher participation and larger per-person benefits.\5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ United States Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition
    Service, SNAP Monthly and Annual Participation and Costs historical
    data, https://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-
    program-snap.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Figure 2. SNAP Composition by Age, Disability, and Parental Status
            Among Household Heads, 1996-2019

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              Source: ``Promoting Mobility Through SNAP: Toward Better
            Health and Employment Outcomes,'' American Enterprise
            Institute, May 1, 2023.

        Granted, limited employment is part of the reason participants
    receive SNAP in the first place, but a longitudinal look at employment
    rates among non-disabled SNAP participants paints an equally concerning
    picture. While it is true that most non-disabled SNAP participants move
    in and out of employment, at any given point in time, their employment
    rates are very low relative to the general population. In years when
    unemployment rates are at historical lows (such as now) and employers
    cannot find enough workers, such low employment rates are difficult to
    explain.
        Based on my own research using longitudinal SNAP administrative
    data from Wisconsin, I found that quarterly employment rates among
    ABAWDs were low across time. I explored a cohort of ABAWDs receiving
    SNAP during a 6 month period in 2014 and 2015, and found that the
    quarterly employment rate was consistently below 40 percent and
    declined over the course of the next year (Figure 3). Although 70
    percent of this cohort had employment in at least one quarter in 2015,
    their employment was inconsistent and not sustained, raising concerns
    about their ability to escape poverty and achieve upward mobility over
    the long-term. To the extent that SNAP contributed to these low average
    work rates, policymakers should enact reforms that strengthen
    recipients' attachment to the labor force.
    Figure 3. ABAWD Employment Rate in Wisconsin, 2014-2015

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              Source: Authors calculations using Wisconsin administrative
            data on ABAWD SNAP receipt and employment using wage reporting
            data.

        SNAP could be doing more to help these participants seek and find
    stable employment. Establishing employment as a program purpose in the
    recent debt limit bill is a positive development. But work requirements
    can also play a role, as long as states implement them properly. This
    approach has proven to work in other contexts, such as TANF, and
    Federal policy should ensure that states encourage SNAP participants to
    work insofar as they are able, rather than providing unconditional
    transfer payments. For these reasons, Congress should further
    strengthen existing work requirements by tightening the criteria by
    which states can waive work requirements, and by conducting evaluations
    to test the effectiveness of work requirements on new populations.
        The second point I want to make relates to nutrition and health.
    Through my research, I have documented extremely concerning health
    outcomes among SNAP participants, which regrettably are worse for SNAP
    participants than income-eligible non-participants and higher income
    adults. For example, I found that in 2018 (the most recent year of
    data), 65 percent of SNAP adults age 50-64 had ever been diagnosed with
    diet-related disease, and 42 percent were obese. Compared to other
    groups of Americans not receiving SNAP--both high- and low-income--SNAP
    recipients exhibited much worse health outcomes.
        Research shows that diet-related disease, such as diabetes and
    heart disease, can have severely negative outcomes for individuals,
    such as limited mobility, limited work productivity, mental health
    problems, and reduced quality of life. A stated goal of SNAP is to help
    low-income households afford a nutritious diet, to promote good health.
    Yet, SNAP has no nutritional standards and the data show that SNAP
    participants spend a large share of benefits on non-nutritious foods,
    such as sugary beverages and prepared desserts.\6\ Our nation's largest
    nutrition assistance program, which transfers over $100 billion per
    year to low-income households, is well positioned to encourage
    healthier eating among low-income populations, laying the foundation
    for upward mobility.\7\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ United States Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition
    Service, ``Foods Typically Purchased by Supplemental Nutrition
    Assistance Program (SNAP) Households,'' Nov 2016, https://
    www.fns.usda.gov/snap/foods-typically-purchased-supplemental-nutrition-
    assistance-program-snap-households.
        \7\ Jerold Mande and Grace Flaherty. 2023. ``Supplemental Nutrition
    Assistance Program as a health intervention,'' Current Opinion in
    Pediatrics 35, no. 1 (February), 33-38.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        There is bipartisan, bicameral support to improve SNAP's approach
    to nutrition and diet quality, and there are incremental steps that
    Congress can take as part of a farm bill. Congress should make
    improving diet quality a core SNAP objective, while requiring the USDA
    to measure diet quality among SNAP households as an accountability
    metric. Congress should also require the USDA to regularly track and
    publish the dietary quality of foods purchased with SNAP benefits.
    Finally, Congress should establish nutrition standards in SNAP, similar
    to those in other Federal nutrition programs such as the National
    School Lunch Program and WIC.\8\ As a part of these standards, Congress
    should impose common sense restrictions on SNAP purchases, disallowing
    recipients from using benefits to purchase sugary beverages, as the
    National Commission on Hunger recommended in 2015,\9\ as well as other
    foods with limited nutritional value.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ Angela Rachidi, ``A 21st-Century SNAP: Considerations for the
    2023 Farm Bill,'' American Enterprise Institute, February 23, 2023,
    https://www.aei.org/research-products/report/a-21st-century-snap-
    considerations-for-the-2023-farm-bill/.
        \9\ National Commission on Hunger, ``Freedom From Hunger: An
    Achievable Goal for the United States of America,'' 2015, https://
    cybercemetery.unt.edu/archive/hungercommission/20151217000051/http://
    hungercommission.rti.org/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Conclusion
        In closing, I want to restate the purpose of SNAP as legislated in
    the 2008 Farm Bill and the recent Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023.
    The first purpose states: ``It is declared to be the policy of
    Congress, in order to promote the general welfare, to safeguard the
    health and well-being of the nation's population by raising levels of
    nutrition among low-income households.'' The Fiscal Responsibility Act
    of 2023 added at the end of the paragraph: ``That program includes as a
    purpose to assist low-income adults in obtaining employment and
    increasing their earnings.''
        The data I have presented today clearly shows that SNAP is falling
    short in meeting the stated purpose of SNAP by Congress. However,
    Congress has an opportunity through the farm bill to enact reforms.
        Thank you and I look forward to answering your questions.

        The Chairman. Dr. Rachidi, thank you so much for your
    testimony, and thank you all for your important testimony
    today. At this time Members will be recognized for questions in
    order of seniority, alternating between Majority and Minority
    Members, and in order of arrival for those who joined after the
    hearing convened. You will be recognized for 5 minutes each in
    order to allow us to get to as many questions as possible.
        And before I recognize myself, I would ask unanimous
    consent to submit for the record a June 6 Forbes article about
    a job placement company that has been successfully connecting
    recipients of public assistance to employment for nearly 4
    decades entitled, Work Requirements? The Ongoing Lessons Of
    `America Works'.\1\ Without objection, that will be considered
    submitted for the record, and I will recognize myself for 5
    minutes of questions.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Editor's note: the article referred to is located on p. 121.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        As I mentioned in my opening statement, the four principles
    that guide me as we look to address the nutrition title include
    innovation and technology, employment and education, integrity
    and accountability, and health and well-being. There are
    multiple programs within the Title IV, including SNAP, TEFAP,
    and the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, each of which can
    benefit from some level of refinement. Mr. Hodel and Dr.
    Stover, can each of you provide one or two examples of where
    some fine tuning can change our overall trajectory across
    spending impact and outcomes?
        Mr. Hodel. Thank you. In terms of fine tuning, I like the
    concept of innovation, and I like the idea of starting--
    thinking big, starting small, and so that is what we have done
    at Midwest Food Bank, is looking at areas and pockets that are
    underserved, even through our agencies. And so, I think
    providing support through food purchase options, and also
    providing support just through the support of the food banks to
    allow them to work with the agencies that are on the ground
    that know the food recipients the best, partner with
    corporations, and partner with the food banks.
        The example I would use is what we are doing in the
    Appalachians and eastern Kentucky. We are working with
    corporations to purchase food, we are utilizing our volunteers
    as the workforce to package that food, and then an agency that
    is in location to distribute the food.
        Dr. Stover. Mr. Chairman, if you look at the food system we
    have today, it was engineered to address the endpoint of hunger
    and food security. So, all of the policies that we have, all of
    the programs that we have, all of the economic incentives we
    have are focused on that goal of limiting hunger and food
    insecurity. Now, because of the unintended consequence of
    rising healthcare costs due to the diets that we consume, there
    is a movement to shift to include health with hunger. To do
    that, I am not sure that incremental changes will achieve that
    goal. If we are going to change the goal to include health, we
    need to re-think back across the entire agriculture value
    chain, look at our incentives, look at our policies, look at
    our programs, look at innovations to achieve that goal. I think
    it may be time to rip the Band-Aid off.
        The Chairman. Well, thanks to both of you. Ms. Royal and
    Dr. Rachidi, your testimonies speak to issues plaguing SNAP
    from skimming and burdensome regulations to labor force
    participation, and where nutrition programs lack accountability
    to the taxpayer. How do you break the logjam when talking about
    nutrition programs, and how do we create lasting change that
    results in more substantive outcomes?
        Dr. Rachidi. Thank you for the question. I mean, I agree
    with Dr. Stover that when the food stamp program was first
    established, there was a problem of malnutrition and hunger to
    the extent that we do not see anymore today, fortunately, and
    that is a testament to SNAP. But what we have seen is this very
    large shift in diet quality among Americans, and I believe that
    SNAP has contributed to the declining diet quality.
        So, if we think about SNAP as a program that has
    effectively addressed food insecurity in this country, it
    certainly has contributed to other problems, the main one being
    poor diet quality and poor health among low-income Americans,
    and the other being limited employment due to the disincentives
    that are built into the program. So, I would somewhat agree
    that we do kind of need to shift our thinking of what the
    program's purpose is, and it needs to be both around addressing
    food insecurity, but also ensuring that families have the
    employment and have the health that they need to live thriving
    lives.
        The Chairman. Thank you. Ms. Royal?
        Ms. Royal. While I also agree the program needs to be re-
    examined, I think we also need to stop ignoring the fact that
    fraud exists in the program. So, for the 15 years that I have
    been aware of it, FNS continues to hold to the statistic that
    fraud occurs in less than one percent of SNAP, and I just find
    that statistic unreasonable. We do need to address integrity.
    We do need to make sure that the program does stay strong so it
    can be utilized by the families that need it.
        If we take a--I think a more reasonable look at the fraud
    rate, it is still a small percentage, and I agree with that.
    The majority of applications that we receive contain honest
    information and are submitted by people who need access to the
    program. And by all means, we should make sure that they
    receive it. But we also, again, cannot ignore the false
    applications that come in with the false statements, with the
    intentional acts to take benefits from the program that someone
    is not eligible to receive.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Royal. My time has expired. I
    now recognize the Ranking Member for 5 minutes.
        Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Ms. Brown, we have some
    startling information and statistics that I want to express to
    you and see if you can help us with. More than 80 percent of
    SNAP households included a child, an elderly adult, or a person
    with a disability; 42 percent of all SNAP participants were
    children; ten percent--I am sorry, 16 percent--of SNAP
    participants were elderly.
        And then USDA also found that veterans had a 7.4 percent
    greater risk of food insecurity than the general population.
    And veterans are characterized as having a 7.4 percent higher
    rate of living in food-insecure households. So those three
    groups, our veterans, our children, and seniors--and, I might
    add, our seniors, basically lower-income seniors, are now our
    most threatened group.
        Ms. Brown. Yes.
        Mr. David Scott of Georgia. What are we doing to try to get
    our hands underneath these three groups to help them become
    food-secure? Sixty percent, for example, of our veterans who
    are eligible for food assistance don't get it. What can we do
    to improve this situation with our children, our seniors, and
    our veterans?
        Ms. Brown. Thank you, and I agree with the statistics that
    you shared. I will start with the children. When we look,
    indeed, children are the majority of the majority of the
    population that are receiving SNAP and parents in poverty
        Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Yes.
        Ms. Brown. When they speak about the difficulties that they
    have, speak to a number of concerns about the difficulties that
    they face, and, as I spoke about earlier, often go without food
    so that their children can go with food. And having SNAP
    Outreach, for example, really focus in on these populations
    makes a really big difference in--and creating understanding
    about the availability of the program ensuring that folks
    understand this is a program that is here for help when people
    need it. People do not--again, people do not want to be on
    SNAP, but it is here and available for people when they need
    it.
        When we think about our senior population, we know that
    seniors, when they receive food benefits, can stay in their
    homes longer. It is so beneficial for them to receive a stable
    source of food. Their medication works much better. Students do
    better in school. We know all of the benefits that food
    requires in order for the health of our population to do so
    much better.
        Mr. David Scott of Georgia. And let me ask you this, if I
    may. I mentioned in my opening remarks about the impact of
    artificial intelligence, and our rapidly increasing technology,
    and I am concerned that we are not addressing that in a proper
    way, because many of these job opportunities are disappearing.
    Artificial intelligence are doing many of these jobs, and they
    are being pictured to do even more of the types of jobs that
    lower-income people, people who really need SNAP--what more can
    we do? I am trying to get an interest here in Congress to
    explore this. And not only that, jobs now require being able to
    handle technology, in terms of how they address their work. And
    if we are not careful, we are going to become servants of the
    machine that was created to serve us.
        Ms. Brown. Yes. Absolutely. There are a number of ways we
    can work with that. Our employment and training programs, for
    instance, really need to address the capacity for our
    populations in poverty to be able to go to school and learn
    these skills and technologies for this new growing technology
    force. Additionally, we need to address the student policies to
    ensure that students can go to school to learn this new way of
    working so that they then can receive a job and move their way
    out of poverty. So those two areas, SNAP employment and
    training, strengthening, and then also reform our student
    policies, would both be beneficial.
        Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Thank you for your courtesy,
    Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Sure.
        I thank the gentleman. Before I introduce--or recognize our
    next Member, I do ask unanimous consent to submit for the
    record a June 2 Wall Street Journal piece that shows how, by
    ignoring work, we are not serving low-income communities well
    entitled, Work Requirements and Lost Lessons of 1996.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Editor's note: the article referred to is located on p. 146.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Yes.
        The Chairman. So, without objection, I now recognize the
    other gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Austin Scott, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I
    absolutely support the work requirements that we have sought to
    add. I do want to make it clear, just so everybody understands,
    the change is from 49 to 54. We are not talking about senior
    citizens. We are talking about 49 to 54. I don't know anybody
    who thinks that age 54 is a senior citizen. It is not only
    important for them to go to work for their health, but I would
    remind everybody that what you earn over the course of your
    time, over the course of your lifetime, gets calculated into
    your Social Security benefits. So, if you go from 49 to 54
    without working, you are going to have reduced Social Security
    benefits the rest of your life. Certainly, less than you would
    have if you had worked.
        But I want to focus on what Dr. Rachidi and Dr. Stover--
    both of you mentioned health. And I will tell you, it bothers
    me--as a parent, I walk in the grocery store, I see things that
    I buy for my family that can't be bought with SNAP benefits,
    and I think if we could have an honest discussion about the
    food that we are eating and allowing to purchased, that maybe
    we could accomplish a couple of things together, instead of
    simply criticizing each other.
        But if you look at the list of things that can be
    purchased, fruits and vegetables, that is good. Expensive, but
    good. Meat, poultry, and fish, that is good. Breads and
    cereals, that is good. Other foods, such as snack foods. I am
    not sure that is good. I am not saying people shouldn't be able
    to buy a pack of crackers, but if we are honest, some of the
    stuff that is being bought with SNAP benefits is leading to the
    health challenges that you are talking about.
        If you go to what households cannot buy, and I am reading
    from the USDA website, foods that are hot at the point of sale.
    So, my family literally purchases a rotisserie chicken probably
    every week. Probably every week. It is good, it is simple, it
    is nutritious, and yet people can't use SNAP benefits to
    purchase a rotisserie chicken. I mean, can you explain to me
    why we won't allow people to buy a rotisserie chicken with
    their SNAP benefits, either of you? Why it makes any logical
    sense?
        Dr. Rachidi. Well, I will just say--I mean, the original
    purpose of the food stamp program was for people to purchase
    groceries for preparation at home. And so, if you think about--
    at the time the food stamp program started, the idea of
    rotisserie chicken----
        Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. I am talking about today.
    Look, I am sorry, ma'am, respectfully, I have 5 minutes.
        Dr. Rachidi. Okay.
        Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. It just defies logic that we
    won't allow a rotisserie chicken to be----
        Dr. Rachidi. The cost to prepare the rotisserie chickens
    are baked into the cost of that product, which is not the
    intention of SNAP, which is to purchase groceries for
    preparation at home.
        Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. It doesn't cost much more than
    an uncooked chicken.
        Dr. Stover. I am not going to offer an opinion, but what I
    will say is that we should----
        Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Okay. All right.
        Dr. Stover.--if we are going to have health as an outcome,
    we need to look at all opportunities to achieve health, and
    balance that individual liberty versus the outcome we are
    interested in.
        Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. What baffles me with the whole
    system--my school nutrition people--we micromanage everything
    that our school nutrition people can serve our kids, as if that
    is the problem with their health. Whether it be the type of
    milk they can drink, or putting salt on asparagus or broccoli
    that they serve them at lunch. We micromanage everything that
    is done in the school cafeteria in the name of health, and yet
    we do nothing with regard to what we allow people to buy SNAP
    benefits with.
        So, Dr. Stover, I am going to come to you real quick. You
    said production agriculture is the key to human health. I think
    that the titles of the farm bill are inherently tied together.
    The more production ag we have, the cheaper our food supply is
    in this country. But I would like for you just to walk the
    Committee through, real quick, the types of innovations you
    reference, and how they are tangible to human health.
        Dr. Stover. Certainly. There are many opportunities. If you
    look at the Green Revolution, and the technologies that were
    brought to bear in breeding, and in processing, et cetera, to
    create an abundant food supply to reduce hunger, they were
    incredibly successful. We need to use the same sorts of
    technologies. We have CRISPR, we have other innovations across
    the food system where we can increase both the quantity and the
    quality of the food that we produce that will promote health.
    We just need the will to do it. We need to look at barriers
    like regulation, like will, et cetera. But we have the tools
    and technology to make the food system anything we want it to
    be. We just have to decide what we want.
        Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, my time has
    expired. I do think, if we did this right, we would certainly
    into account health with regard to hunger, and the amount of
    money, and where we spend it. With that, I yield back.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. I am now pleased to
    recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. McGovern, for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. McGovern. Thank you.
        Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank everybody
    here for their testimony, which, by the way, I read, as well as
    listened to you here today. Some of it has been helpful. Quite
    frankly, some of it has not been so helpful. Ms. Royal and Dr.
    Rachidi, I have some strong disagreements with some of the
    things you have said. By the way, I would say to those who are
    saying we should require SNAP recipients to have healthier
    diets, maybe one of the things we can do is expand the benefit.
    You try having a healthy diet on an average about $6 per person
    per day. It is awfully hard. So, the benefit is inadequate, and
    maybe we ought to be talking about expanding GusNIP as a way to
    deal with that.
        The Speaker of the House the other day said, and I quote,
    he ``wants to get more cuts to SNAP.'' He wants to continue his
    crusade to impose more work requirements, and more hurdles for
    people to jump through. We have people on this Committee who
    have bills that would actually increase the age of work
    requirements and expand who would have to comply with them. And
    the Republican cuts that were in the debt ceiling bill, in my
    opinion, were nothing more than throwing literally hundreds of
    thousands of people off the benefit.
        And they didn't get all they wanted, because President
    Biden stopped them from passing the worst version of their
    bill--so now they want to use the farm bill as an excuse to
    kick even more people off the benefit. So, the Freedom Caucus
    has all kinds of red lines that they are drawing that we all
    have to supposedly adhere to. Well, I have a red line too. You
    cut SNAP, you make more people in this country hungry, then we
    are against this farm bill. We will fight against this farm
    bill, plain and simple.
        And, Ms. Royal, I actually read your testimony, and your
    presentation here was much toned down from the testimony that
    you provided here today, and I would like to go through line by
    line to rebut some of the points that you were trying to make,
    but I don't have all day, I only have 5 minutes. But one of the
    things that you say--in your written testimony--you imply that
    the overall fraud rate--and you use Pennsylvania as an
    example--it sounded like 40 percent. That is just not true. You
    are cherry picking numbers to make it sound like fraud is
    rampant when it only represents a fraction of cases.
        Your testimony says that FNS only monitors EBT transactions
    for fraud, not for large retailers. Again, wrong. FNS monitors
    all retailers in a variety of ways, including undercover
    investigations, and monitoring online transactions for
    suspicious activity. So, I kind of went through that. I did my
    research. I have a document here that refutes a lot of what you
    have said, but we don't have but we don't have all day, so let
    me just formally correct the record on one thing in your
    written testimony.
        Ms. Royal, your testimony also gives the impression that
    people can apply and gets lots of benefits, including SNAP,
    with just their name, address, and a signature. Ms. Brown, help
    me correct the record on this. I mean, can you walk through
    everything people have to submit, in addition to the interview,
    verification, and intensive quality control checks at the back-
    end?
        Ms. Brown. Thank you, Representative. Indeed, the process
    for application and review through our eligibility workers is
    quite extensive, so I will begin to list some of the
    verifications. So first a client must meet and talk to an
    eligibility worker, and they share information that is then
    verified. And that includes first, the identity of the
    applicant, and that can be through a driver's license, that can
    be through a birth certificate, and then it is a Social
    Security Number. All applicants must provide a Social Security
    Number. We have an automated interface in our system that
    matches against the Social Security Administration to verify
    that number. If that number is not verified, the case is
    closed.
        We also ask non-citizen applicants about--if they don't
    have a Social Security Number, proof that they have applied for
    one, so there is a process for that. Applicants must share
    their proof of income, both earned and unearned, they must
    submit pay stubs. They share their wage detail printout from
    their employers. If they have been terminated, they share
    documents that show their termination, the last day paid, any
    documents that show any type of income requirement.
        They also share immigration status. We match against the
    Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements Program to
    ensure that immigration status is verified. We verify residents
    of the state. We verify shelter, what are the shelter costs? We
    verify, if they are a student, what are the costs of financial
    aid information? If they are working, we verify the number of
    hours that they are working, the number of counted months used
    in other states. And then we go through some of the deductions
    that they may have, whether that is medical expenses, shelter
    expenses, child support payments. And then once application is
    proved, then we go through the quality control process, which
    is a detailed interview with the household.
        Mr. McGovern. Boy, that sounds like more than a name,
    address, and a signature. Thank you very much. I just want to
    say, we are going to fight like hell against any cuts to this
    program that will increase hunger in this country. This is the
    wrong way for us to proceed. Thank you. I yield back.
        The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. Before I recognize
    our next speaker, Mr. DesJarlais, I am seeking unanimous
    consent to submit for the record a 2022 LexisNexis Risk
    Solutions True Cost of FraudTM Study.\3\ Without
    objection, that is submitted, and I am now pleased to recognize
    Mr. DesJarlais from Tennessee for 5 minutes.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Editor's note: the report referred to is located on p. 186.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Mr. DesJarlais. I thank the Chairman. And I find it
    interesting, when we have SNAP hearings or nutrition hearings,
    they always seem to devolve into a partisan exercise when all
    of us on this Committee want to prevent food insecurity, and we
    just have to find responsible ways to manage it, and that is
    what a lot of this is about.
        Ms. Royal, your testimony opines on the rates of fraud in
    SNAP, an estimate which can range from eight percent to 40
    percent. As you know, the Department is set to release their
    error rate accommodation of overpayments and underpayments on
    June 30. What error rate is the Council anticipating?
        Ms. Royal. There is a significant distinguishing factor
    between the error rate and a fraud rate. They are independent.
    Again, I am a fraud investigator. But I will say that--I mean,
    certainly we keep track of--I am aware of the error rate, and I
    do keep track of that. And I also--I am very concerned that it
    is going to exceed the numbers in 2019, which were in excess of
    seven percent.
        Mr. DesJarlais. Okay.
        Ms. Royal. Again, fraud rate has to do with false
    statements, the number of false statements that are encountered
    in the program. The error rate has to do with the accuracy that
    states issue benefits.
        Mr. DesJarlais. Okay. You speak in your testimony about the
    importance of integrity in our nation's public assistance
    programs. One concern of mine has the number of non-citizens
    who are receiving benefits. You may be aware that there are 13
    categories outlining eligibility requirements for benefits with
    no waiting period, and this includes qualified alien children
    under 18 years of age, and asylees under Section 8 of the
    Immigration and Nationality Act.
        I firmly believe SNAP was intended to temporarily serve
    American families, giving them the leg up they need to be self-
    sufficient, and SNAP is already projected to cost more than
    $1.2 trillion over the next 2 years. And with the crisis we
    have seen at the southern border, with literally millions of
    undocumented citizens coming in, I don't think the program can
    continue to keep up, considering that there are literally
    millions of children that qualify for SNAP based on these
    standards, and also the fact that almost everyone coming across
    the border is seeking asylum. Do you have any ideas about how
    do we maintain the program integrity when it comes to non-
    citizens?
        Ms. Royal. Critical element that we need is identity
    verification at the front-end, so when somebody submits an
    application we have the ability, again, to verify that the
    person is who they say that they are. Certainly, benefits can
    be issued with a name, address, and signature. Verification is
    required to continue benefits, but the name, address, signature
    is the requirement on the initial benefit. Having technology
    available at the beginning to leverage that verification
    process, to leverage all of the facets of eligibility, would be
    a game-changing opportunity for the fight for integrity.
        Mr. DesJarlais. Ms. Royal, I am certain you are aware the
    National Accuracy Clearinghouse, as written in the 2018 Farm
    Bill, has yet to be implemented due to a variety of Executive
    Branch antics. At this point we are looking at another 5 years
    before the NAC is fully implemented, and I am not convinced it
    will resemble anything like the policymakers' design. Do you
    have any thoughts on this?
        Ms. Royal. That was a devastating blow to SNAP integrity.
    The National Accuracy Clearinghouse just provided an
    opportunity for states to discover where there is an individual
    receiving benefits in more than one state at one time. That
    isn't always an intentional error. Somebody can cross state
    lines and inadvertently forget to close their previous case,
    submit an application. That does happen. And the NAC would have
    been able to give us--would have given us the tool to identify
    that. Unfortunately, it is also an opportunity for people to
    steal from the program. People do submit applications across
    state lines with the intentional act to receive dual benefits.
    That also--the NAC would have been able to help us identify
    those intentional acts as well.
        The delay, again, was devastating to integrity. Having the
    new NAC, if you will, developed, and able to roll out in the
    next 5 years, at the end of 2027, can cost the taxpayers
    billions of dollars.
        Mr. DesJarlais. Okay. Well, thank you all for being here
    today. My time is about to expire. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia [presiding.] The chair now
    recognizes Ms. Adams of North Carolina for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Adams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for
    your testimony. I just keep hearing all this fearmongering. It
    is just wrong. Undocumented individuals are not eligible for
    SNAP, and no American citizen is being denied SNAP because a
    permanent resident received benefits. And no one in this
    country should go hungry because they can't afford food,
    period. I strongly believe that, and that is why I am still
    furious that Speaker McCarthy and House Republicans held the
    American economy hostage to make our lowest-income Americans
    pay the price by taking food off their tables for their tax
    breaks for the richest one percent. It is kind of like Robin
    Hood in reverse. We are taking food from the poorest of the
    poor, we are blaming them for the debt, and we are asking
    nothing of the richest of the rich.
        Now, poor folk are not responsible for our debt, and you
    shouldn't be punished because you are poor. So, when I heard
    that my colleagues, including the Speaker, are going to push to
    take food assistance away from more vulnerable Americans in the
    upcoming farm bill, we are just not going to have that. No
    more. No more PPP, punishing poor people. There are more than
    2,000 references in the Bible that speak to how we treat the
    poor, and so what is being proposed, that is not the way. That
    is not what it says.
        Our Ranking Member has previously stated taking food away
    from people is un-Christian. Well, so is all the misinformation
    and the conspiracy about SNAP. Leviticus 19 and 11 reminds us
    ``Do not steal, do not lie,'' and so I am not going to support
    any farm bill or any other legislation that will take food away
    from low-income households, which are really underpaid
    households. And we continue to talk about getting to work for
    $7.25 an hour? You can't survive on $7.25.
        Cuts to SNAP harm our nation's most vulnerable, including
    children, and families, and older Americans, and disabled
    people. In 2020 almost 31,000 households in my district
    depended on SNAP to put food on their tables every month. We
    have a food insecurity issue in North Carolina, and in other
    places, so soon many low-income Americans will lose out on
    critical food assistance, because of the reinstatement of
    SNAP's punitive, insensitive, 3 month time limit on benefits
    for people who can't find work, but who need to eat, so where
    is the compassion, folks?
        Taking away SNAP doesn't help anyone find work. It just
    makes them go hungry. Our SNAP recipients who can work do work,
    and some people, like elderly people, are being forced to work
    in our economy. I have heard stories about people in my
    district taking low wage jobs when they should be enjoying
    retirement, for example, and some of them can't even stand up
    at work. Greeting people coming into the store. Many of these
    folks that we are trying to punish here get SNAP benefits
    because they don't earn enough. The money runs out, the food
    runs out, before the month runs out. Working hard is not enough
    if you don't make enough: $7.25, you can't survive, and all of
    my colleagues here know it.
        And then when we talk about what you are getting, $6 a day,
    $2.41? I mean, come on. Are you going to be able to eat a
    decent meal for $2.41 a meal? That is absolutely ridiculous.
    Ms. Brown, how is Minnesota preparing to reinstate the time
    limit and the expansion from 50 to 54 years old? And by the
    way, I got my AARP card at 50, so some people do consider you
    to be a senior then. So what burden does the time limit place
    on program administrators and recipients, and what do you think
    the ultimate impact will be?
        Ms. Brown. Thank you, Representative. The time limit--so as
    we are thinking about reinstating the time limits, we are
    working through a number of processes. We are ensuring that our
    trainers, our workers, are fully trained and are aware of the
    rules and regulations they need to apply on people. We are
    working with recipients to ensure that they are aware of what
    they need to do to keep up to speed with the changing
    regulation. We are ensuring that our websites have information
    about other resources that they can access. So, we know this
    will be an additional burden on our food banks and our food
    shelf system, which is already seeing record numbers. So, we
    are preparing in a lot of ways, with our emergency food system,
    to ensure that folks are ready to respond to the number of
    folks that will no longer be available.
        We also are working to ensure that we can apply for a
    waiver that will allow us to take into consideration the
    unemployment rates. So, we know, and as I shared earlier, that
    our unemployment rate in Minnesota is very low. But when we
    start to look at the racial divides, we see that African
    American and American Indian populations are disproportionately
    impacted, and so this time limit will disproportionately impact
    those populations----
        Ms. Adams. Thank you very much, ma'am. My time is up. We
    are not going to allow this. I want my colleagues to know that.
    Let us keep SNAP, let us keep people eating. We must feed
    folks. Working hard is not enough if you don't make enough.
        Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Thank you. The chair asks
    unanimous consent to submit for the record May 31 FOXBusiness
    article referencing April surge in job openings, Job Openings
    Unexpectedly Surge in April to the Highest Level in 3
    Months.\4\ Hearing no objections, it is submitted. I now
    recognize Mr. LaMalfa for 5 minutes.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Editor's note: the article referred to is located on p. 124.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We keep hearing we
    are not going to allow this or that. Well, all we are looking
    for here is a program that is being run with accuracy and
    integrity for the folks that have the real need that are
    receiving it, and that's also appropriate to have course
    corrections with any Federal program during its time of
    existence. So, I'm tired of these accusations.
        So, Ms. Royals--Ms. Royal, I wanted to clarify something
    that was said earlier as well, is that--are not asylum seekers
    and any person under 18 years old able to receive SNAP benefits
    in this country? The--as non-citizens? Anybody else on the
    panel that want to weigh in on that? Ms. Royal, is that
    something you are aware of?
        Ms. Royal. It is not something I am comfortable in
    responding to. Again, I am an--or a--an integrity investigator,
    and I don't issue benefits.
        Mr. LaMalfa. Okay. How about Ms. Rachidi? Dr. Rachidi?
        Dr. Rachidi. I do not believe the 5 year ban on non-citizen
    applies to asylees--asylums.
        Mr. LaMalfa. Sorry?
        Dr. Rachidi. So, there is a 5 year ban on non-citizens,
    that they can't receive SNAP benefits. I do not believe that
    applies to those that are seeking asylum.
        Mr. LaMalfa. It does not apply to asylum? How about under
    18 years old?
        Dr. Rachidi. And children as well, right.
        Mr. LaMalfa. Yes. So, we do have people that are not here
    legally that are receiving SNAP benefits, or they are not
    citizens receiving SNAP benefits?
        Dr. Rachidi. Well, I--right. I mean, I think they are here
    legally if they are seeking asylum, but, yes.
        Mr. LaMalfa. Well, asylum is one thing, but my--people
    under 18 that have gotten here are receiving SNAP benefits,
    right?
        Dr. Rachidi. To your point, yes.
        Mr. LaMalfa. Okay. Thank you. So, Dr. Stover, we are
    hearing about the gap in income, and how far that goes on
    receiving nutritious food, healthier food, healthier choices.
    So, would increasing the dollar amount of the benefits, would
    that lead to healthier choices, do you believe, and do you have
    any data that would support that?
        Dr. Stover. There are data in this area. What I would say
    to that is if one is interested in increasing the SNAP benefit
    for health outcome, one would look at the available data to do
    an impact analysis, and look over time what has increasing SNAP
    done to affect hunger and food insecurity, what could
    increasing the SNAP benefit do to then improve health outcomes
    and lower healthcare costs? But that is the type of data that
    we need so we can have science-informed and data-driven
    policies.
        While I am not answering that question directly because I
    am not familiar with the totality of the literature, this is
    the value of having an evidence-based approach to setting
    policy, so that one can be certain about outcomes, or more
    certain about outcomes.
        Mr. LaMalfa. So, in all the existence of the SNAP Program,
    we don't really have data that has been gathered yet that the
    increased dollar amount per user of the program would lead to
    healthier food choices in their diet?
        Dr. Stover. Some of those data are available, and we can
    make those available to you, but I don't have those in my
    fingertips.
        [The information referred to is located on p. 232.]
        Mr. LaMalfa. Do you have a conclusion, from what you know
    of that data, that would say, yes, it is--seems true, or
    inconclusive? What do you think about the data you have seen?
        Dr. Stover. I am not aware of any meta analyses, or any
    type of research synthesis that has been done to look at the
    totality of the literature. There are some studies that show
    effects, there are some studies that show other effects, but I
    am not aware of someone who has systematically combined all of
    the data to answer your specific question. But I agree with you
    that that is what is needed in the entire food and agriculture
    space.
        Mr. LaMalfa. More data, or higher benefits?
        Dr. Stover. More data, and combination of the data. Taken--
    looking at the existing data and combining it in a way that is
    statistically appropriate so that you can get the answer you
    are seeking so you can make an informed decision.
        Mr. LaMalfa. So, in all these years we don't have this kind
    of data that is being gathered, so we--I got--got more to do on
    data gathering, so--all right. The--so the concept that has
    been advanced today is that more money would mean healthier
    choices. We don't really have proof of that?
        Dr. Stover. Literature that would----
        Mr. LaMalfa. Okay. All right. All right. Do you have an
    idea of what we could do to incentivize healthier choices,
    whether it is more dollars, or any other method? And we have
    just a little time, please.
        Dr. Stover. Again, the food system we have is focused on
    lowering rates of hunger and food insecurity. If you change the
    endpoint to health, then all of your incentives should be
    around health, not around the food itself.
        Mr. LaMalfa. Okay. Thank you.
        Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. The gentleman's time has
    expired. I ask to submit for the record a February 2023 article
    on how SNAP can be strengthened to be a health intervention.\5\
    Without objection, so ordered. Mrs. Hayes, from Connecticut,
    you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ Editor's note: the Current Opinion Pediatrics article referred
    to entitled, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program as a health
    intervention, is located on p. 115.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Mrs. Hayes. Thank you, and thank you for holding this
    hearing. Much of our work this year is going to be around the
    farm bill, and we have heard a lot about how the farm bill
    impacts farmers and rural communities. While every Member of
    Congress may not represent a rural community, I remind you that
    every single one of us represents people who eat. And with the
    farm bill being our biggest undertaking, I will once again
    express my disappointment that 80 percent of the farm bill
    falls under the Nutrition Title, and this is the first and only
    hearing we are having on this topic.
        You are all right, hunger should not be a political issue.
    But when we came to the table to negotiate on the debt ceiling,
    what my Republican colleagues asked for was increases to our
    military budget, which has been increased year after year, even
    though the DOD has failed five consecutive waste, fraud, and
    abuse audits, and they are unable to account of over 60 percent
    of their $3.5 trillion in assets.
        But SNAP is where we want to look to make cuts. Their
    obsession with cutting food assistance is just jarring. I
    remind you one more time, $6 per person per day. That is not
    the cause of our enormous budget deficits. And highlighting
    one-off instances of fraud as indicative of the larger program
    is just wrong. Ms. Royal, I hope that you arrest every single
    person who is committing fraud in the SNAP Program because they
    too are stealing from the people who need it most. Every one of
    us supports investigating those cases of fraud, which are few
    and far between, and not what is being reported today.
        SNAP is one of the largest anti-hunger, anti-poverty
    initiatives in this nation. More than 42 million Americans
    depend on SNAP each month, including 15.3 million children;
    108,000 of those children live in my state. And when we want to
    talk about data--I listened very carefully to some of the data
    that Dr. Rachidi introduced--Federal data shows that four out
    of five households in the program have at least one family
    member working, so the majority of people who are collecting
    benefits are working.
        As an educator, I saw poverty firsthand. Hungry kids don't
    learn, and hunger and poverty are a significant driver to poor
    learning outcomes, and many families are unable to purchase or
    access the food their children need to reach their full
    potential. I am going to go through all of this, and then I am
    going to give you some time, Ms. Tikki Brown, to respond. I
    want you to talk about the effects hunger has on learning, and
    how these can be lifelong and cyclical, and what barriers
    children have to accessing SNAP. And then my other question--I
    just want you to have enough time to speak--is about incentive
    programs like GusNIP, and how they help SNAP recipients
    purchase fruits and vegetables, and support local farmers.
        We heard a lot about people's choices. Their choices are
    not because they don't have restrictions or guidelines in SNAP.
    Many low-income, urban, and rural communities frequently have
    low access to healthy food or retail options. If there is no
    grocery store around you, and you are buying your meals from a
    bodega, and you are homeless, and don't have access to hot
    foods, you buy what is available. So, it is flawed to think
    that people are just making the choice, from everything there,
    to only buy snacks.
        So, my second question that I would like for you to
    address, Ms. Brown, is how programs like GusNIP can help
    connect people in low access communities to farmers, farmers'
    markets, and healthy food options. So those two things. Thank
    you.
        Ms. Brown. Thank you, Representative. So, to your first
    question, absolutely, children who go to school hungry, who
    live in households with a lack of access to food, often suffer
    with an inability to concentrate at school. They fall behind
    academically. They are more likely to miss school because of
    illnesses. It impacts health, right? And we see those impacts
    throughout a person's life often, as well. So, prevention is
    key here, and ensuring that children have enough food from an
    early age, and throughout their growth cycle.
        To your second question around incentives, it is incredibly
    important. In Minnesota we have been able to pay with state
    dollars, through our legislature, a Market Bucks Program, and
    that incentivizes SNAP recipients by doubling their SNAP
    dollars at the farmers' market. It creates more access to
    fruits and vegetables. It helps rural farmers' markets and
    agriculture producers. It is a--it is an absolutely wonderful
    program, and people enjoy it.
        So, we have to think about, when we are talking about SNAP
    participants, it is a supplemental program. It is $110 per
    month in our state, and it does not cover every single expense.
    And so when we look at what people are buying, we have to
    consider all of the options. Thank you.
        Mrs. Hayes. Thank you. With that, I yield back.
        Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Thank you. The chair now
    recognizes Mr. Bost for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Bost. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My colleagues from the
    other side of the aisle did a couple things here. First off,
    one said that we only had one hearing, but while they were in
    the Majority, they only had two on this. You know that? But
    since 2015 we have had 39 on this particular subject. One of my
    colleagues, also on the other side of the aisle, gave testimony
    that one of our witnesses has failed to--blew apart, and
    complained about her testimony, and--but failed allow--to allow
    her to respond, and I would like to give Ms. Royal, if she can,
    to respond about her testimony and why it is accurate.
        Ms. Royal. The accusation was that it requires more than
    name, address, and signature to submit an application. And, to
    make the clarification, that is what is required to receive an
    application. Now, verification is required of the different
    things that--among the different things that Ms. Brown
    described, and that verification--the burden of that falls on
    the agency to do that.
        So, somebody comes in, essentially John Doe, homeless, and
    puts an X on the application, it needs to be processed, and
    benefits are likely going to be issued for that first month. I
    will clarify again, we will need to get clarifying information,
    according to the regulations, including Social Security Number,
    and additional eligibility requirements. But I will hold fast
    to that statement as true and accurate.
        Mr. Bost. Thank you very much. Mr. Hodel, we are spending
    more taxpayer dollars on nutrition support than ever before,
    yet the rate of food insecurity still hovers around ten
    percent. Where is innovation lacking, and where do you see
    opportunities--where do they lie for new ways to invest--these
    programs so they show results, and decrease the rates of food
    insecurity? If any other witnesses would like to add, to do
    that, I would like that as well.
        Mr. Hodel. Thank you representative. Yes, innovation, you
    go to any corporation--that is the buzzword, but it is elusive.
    Innovation starts with ideas, and ideas start with people. And
    the secret sauce in the Midwest Food Bank is our volunteers. We
    have 30,000 volunteers that come in and out of our facilities
    every year, and we highly leverage our volunteers in a variety
    of roles, and so that is where--that is what sparks our ideas
    for innovation. So, we are blessed at Midwest Food Bank to have
    a variety of talents--they are coming--they are retirees, they
    are still employed, they are mothers that are looking to kind
    of fill their day, but they all bring different life
    experiences, they all bring different education to Midwest Food
    Bank, and that sparks ideas.
        And so, from those ideas, then we move quickly. We
    experiment, we determine what works, and we just grow from
    there. And so, I would say that that innovation of how do we
    use companies that have logistics companies, and we utilize
    their freight lanes? How are they distributing family food
    boxes for us? Where are we working with the retail market and
    the grocery industry has changed rapidly, and so we have to
    pivot quickly to rescue food. And so, all of those ideas and
    connections, to make sure that we are casting a broad net, we
    are rescuing food across the country, we are bringing it in,
    and a lot of times using other resources. Companies that have
    trucking companies that are willing to give back, and support
    philanthropically to what Midwest Food Bank does.
        One other example of innovation is we have a local junior
    college that they train their CDL drivers at our facility. We
    have a large parking lot, and so we get food moved around by
    that junior college while they are achieving their CDL
    certification.
        Mr. Bost. Wonderful. Anyone else?
        Dr. Rachidi. Can I just add real quickly that there is a
    disconnect between food insecurity rates and SNAP expenditures?
    And we have seen that even more so in recent years. Since 2019
    over $40 billion more dollars in SNAP has gone out to
    households in real dollars. Benefits were increased in 2021 by
    25 percent, and we have not really seen food insecurity rates
    move very much.
        Mr. Bost. All right.
        Dr. Stover. I would just like to add that I really
    appreciate the innovation that we have seen here with the
    Midwest Food Bank. As was said, rates of hunger and food
    insecurity, other than the pandemic, have been pretty much
    stagnant. And the issue is not food production, it is access,
    and dealing with the access issue was absolutely critical. At
    the same time, we have also seen, amongst that population,
    rapid increases in obesity and diet-related chronic disease.
    And so, it is access, but we also need to have a think about
    the issue of the chronic diseases in that population.
        Mr. Bost. Thank you very much to all of you for your
    answers. Let me be very, very clear here. No Republican wants
    to see people go hungry. We want to make sure a program works.
    But the difference is we want to make sure that it works
    wisely, that it works wisely, and we are spending the money
    accurately. And my time has expired, but I think, if you want
    me to, I can go on a long time explaining why it is that the
    program itself has a lot of problems. With that, Mr. Chairman,
    I yield back.
        Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. To clarify, in the first 6
    months of the 117th what--that--this Committee had two meetings
    on production agriculture, and so far we have had one on
    production agriculture--so that is--I know there is some
    accusations going back and forth, but it is--anyway. And----
        Mr. McGovern. Yes, Mr. Chair? Chairman?
        Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Yes, sir?
        Mr. McGovern. I want to ask unanimous consent to insert in
    the record an article entitled, `City slickers' receiving
    federal farm subsidies soared under Trump,\6\ and it basically
    is about a GAO study that found that roughly \1/4\ of farm
    subsidy recipients do not contribute personal labor to farms.
    They live in urban areas like New York City and Chicago. So, we
    want to hear about integrity of programs cracking under fraud,
    maybe we ought to do a hearing on this, rather than rather than
    beating up on poor people.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ Editor's note: the Environmental Working Group's news release
    is located on p. 199.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. That is so ordered. We can't
    make a speech on it. We are going to allow you to submit it for
    the record. All right. Ms. Brown from Ohio, 5 minutes.
        Ms. Brown of Ohio. Thank you so much. As we open with
    prayer, I am reminded of Proverbs 14:31, ``Whoever oppresses a
    poor man insults his maker, but he who is generous to the needy
    honors him.'' Last Congress we held seven hearings on
    nutrition, so I want to set the record straight on that. I also
    want to set the record straight as it relates to illegals, or
    aliens, that are getting SNAP. this is, again, pure
    fearmongering, and wrong on many levels.
        One, undocumented individuals are not eligible for SNAP.
    Two, SNAP benefits are available to all who qualify, and no
    American citizen is being denied SNAP because a permanent
    resident received benefits. More than 96 percent of SNAP
    participants are U.S. citizens. Of the four percent who are
    not, less than one percent are refugees, and three percent are
    lawful permanent residents, and other eligible non-citizens,
    like asylees. And they are only eligible once they have been
    granted asylum, not while their applications are pending. The
    only exception is for Cuban and Haitian nationals. So, I just,
    again, want to set the record straight.
        As it relates to incentivizing nutrition, nutrition
    incentives are definitely a benefit, and we can talk about
    programs like GusNIP, which are far more effective and
    productive, and I am happy to discuss how we can work together
    to expand that program. Because in my district, almost 25
    percent of households, which--nearly one in four depend on SNAP
    to put food on their tables. Statewide, in my state, 1.3
    million Ohioans receive food assistance through SNAP. In an
    average month this number includes 530,000 children, 200,000
    individuals with disabilities, and 163,000 seniors, however you
    want to define them.
        One of the most vulnerable food-insecure populations in my
    district, and indeed across the nation, are people facing
    homelessness. Even though most, if not all, of these people are
    SNAP eligible, our homeless population has lower SNAP
    enrollment rates than any other groups due to administrative
    and logistical barriers like inconsistent transportation, and
    lack of access to food storage and preparation, Ms. Royal. They
    also face obstacles to employment, such as a consistent
    address, and access to a phone, e-mail, or traditional mail.
        That is why I remain outraged that the Republicans demanded
    more older Americans be subject to SNAP's harsh time limits on
    benefits as part of the debt limit agreement. I was pleased,
    though, that President Biden was able to negotiate a new
    exemption for individuals experiencing homelessness through
    2030. Leaving people hungry will not help our economy, it will
    not create jobs, or balance the budget. But despite these
    claims, this is what my Republican colleagues seem to believe.
        So, Ms. Brown--no relation, I don't think--as things
    currently stand, pre-implementation of the new exemption, how
    do work requirements impact homeless individuals, and what are
    some of the barriers unhoused populations face to achieve
    steady work?
        Ms. Brown. Thank you, Representative. So currently in our
    state, we do use an exemption with our homeless population. We
    call it a Homeless Plus. So, if somebody is lacking in a fixed
    or regular nighttime residence, plus they are lacking access to
    a shower or laundry facilities, they can achieve some
    exemption. So, we have made some progress on that front. What
    we have found, in speaking to the population, is that they find
    it very difficult to interview for jobs, and people, in fact,
    will not interview with them if they do not have access to a
    shower, or have access to laundry facilities.
        I also want to just make the comment that some homeless
    individuals do work, and they also face many, many barriers.
    When people are homeless, they often have to check into a
    homeless shelter at a certain time of the night, or even during
    the day, and that does impede their ability to work, and to go
    to interviews. And so there are a number of barriers that
    homeless individuals face that prevent them from achieving long
    lasting work, and that is why SNAP is so important, to ensure
    that they have the ability to have food so that they then can
    stabilize.
        Ms. Brown of Ohio. Two questions. Do you think the
    exemption will help more unhoused individuals qualify, and stay
    qualified, for SNAP, and if so, should we consider making this
    a permanent exemption?
        Ms. Brown. I think it is a great opportunity for folks. I
    believe that it will allow folks to stay on the program longer,
    to stabilize.
        Ms. Brown of Ohio. Thank you. So, I want to be clear, as we
    begin serious consideration of the upcoming farm bill, I will
    not support taking food assistance away from low-income
    households, period. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back
    the balance of my time.
        Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Mr. Moore for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Moore. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
    witnesses being here today. Four out of every $5 in the farm
    bill goes to nutrition, as it stands today, and that worries
    me. I would like to take this opportunity to remind my friends
    across the aisle that this farm bill is not a nutrition bill,
    and that there is more to be discussed than just SNAP
    programming.
        Do I think hungry people should go no--a--I mean do I think
    people should go hungry? No, absolutely not. But I do think we
    need to make sure the program that is consuming more than 85
    percent of the farm bill's budget needs to ensure--and needs to
    be administered in a way that serves the taxpayers, and for
    those receiving those benefits. I want to make sure that we
    are--we talk about integrity and innovation in this hearing
    session, and so--one of the things I want to ask, Ms. Royal--I
    don't know if you have been tracking the Federal welfare
    program reforms in the new debt ceiling negotiations. How do
    you expect other provisions in the debt ceiling package to
    increase program transparency and integrity?
        Ms. Royal. I am not aware of elements in the new debt
    ceiling package that are going to affect integrity. Again,
    integrity has to do with intentional false statements that
    people make in order to become eligible, and the focus, again,
    on pursuing fraud in that program, I would say, is confined to
    that area.
        Mr. Moore. I grew up on a farm and worked in industry
    before I actually came to Congress, and I could certainly
    appreciate the value of a hard day's work. The SNAP Program has
    education and training requirements included in its eligibility
    standards. Dr. Rachidi, can you speak to the value of
    incorporating education and training opportunities into SNAP
    eligibility standards, and have these requirements shown a
    return to the workforce and self-sufficiency?
        Dr. Rachidi. Well, the SNAP Employment and Training Program
    is largely voluntary in most states. There are a few that have
    mandatory for ABAWDs, but for the most part, it is voluntary.
    The funding is also fairly limited. There is a state match that
    is required, so really this program is pretty small. And the
    evidence that we have on the programs, again, that is people
    already motivated to participate. Because it is voluntary, they
    participate.
        The evidence that we have is that these programs are
    actually not very effective at increasing employment on
    average. And so, I think there is a lot of work that could be
    done, because in employment and training is a key component,
    and the program could be stronger in that area.
        Mr. Moore. Dr. Rachidi, I don't think there is a government
    program in the world as good as a job, and I think people
    earning and working in any--I think that was shown even with
    the Clinton work requirements, when they came out with those
    under Bill Clinton, that once people got in the workforce, they
    stayed in the workforce, and it actually improved their
    standard of living.
        And so, I think that is something we should all encourage
    and want to see. I don't think that programs should be--they
    are safety net programs, but they should not be spiderwebs. I
    don't think people should get trapped in those programs. I
    think our job is to lift people out of poverty, and then create
    opportunity for those folks. And so, Dr. Brown--I mean, Ms.
    Brown--I am not trying to promote you to Ph.D. here--quick
    question. You said something a while ago about people applying,
    maybe, for benefits that maybe are non-citizens. And do you
    know if asylee seekers--or--if they are--the people who are
    seeking asylum instantly are approved for benefits?
        Ms. Brown. Thank you, Representative. Asylee seekers do not
    receive benefits. Once they receive asylum, then they would be
    eligible.
        Mr. Moore. Do you know how quickly that process happens
    normally, when they apply for asylum?
        Ms. Brown. I unfortunately do not.
        Mr. Moore. Okay. I went--in Yuma, Arizona--I went to a
    hearing down there a few weeks ago, and we were actually
    interviewing some law enforcement officers and people down
    along the border in Yuma, and one of the things that concerned
    me was--the Sheriff told me they--instantly, when those people
    cross the border, they are granted a Notice to Appear in court,
    and they are given benefits, taxpayer benefits.
        And so, my concern was--we know of five million people now
    that have had encounters on the southern borders, but one of
    the things is they are throwing their IDs down before they get
    there. So, we have tons south of the U.S. border, and people
    are claiming to be unaccompanied minors, but they are above the
    age of 18. And so, my concern, for the American people, that we
    want the people that are most vulnerable, that we talk about
    the vulnerable populations in this country. My concern is if we
    continue to just process five million people every 24 months at
    the U.S. southern border, that at some point the people on our
    assistance programs will push out the most needy Americans.
        And that is a concern for me, because when they told me
    instantly they got a cell phone, and then they got a Notice to
    Appear in court, and many cases they got benefits of up to $800
    a month, and that is concerning for me, because I am afraid
    some of that might be SNAP benefits that we could be using for
    Americans. So, I just wondered if you might have any access or
    idea of how quickly they are approved, and how are we
    verifying, because you said something I felt was interesting, a
    proof of application for a Social Security Number. Could you
    elaborate on--never mind, I am----
        Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Ms. Brown, could you be very
    fast with that? We are out of time.
        Mr. Moore. Real quick, Ms. Brown, please?
        Ms. Brown. We do have a number of verifications that ensure
    that Social Security Number, you cannot receive benefits
    without a Social Security Number.
        Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Okay. All right. Time has
    expired. Before we go to Ms. Davids for 5 minutes, Mr. Finstad,
    we are coming to you next. Ms. Davids, 5 minutes.
        Ms. Davids of Kansas. Good morning. Being in Congress can
    be hard sometimes, because it is kind of heartbreaking to spend
    so much time trying to get here, to have arguments that include
    sometimes--while focusing on trying to make sure that we have
    integrity in a system, or that we are taking care of American
    citizens, that we sometimes end up seeing the dehumanization of
    people.
        And, as someone who, like, grew up poor, and has managed
    to--through education, through help from a lot of different
    people and organizations, to have conversations taking place
    that essentially start with a premise of laziness, or a lack of
    desire to do something like get an education, or get a job--
    because people who aren't able to feed their kids are not
    sitting at home trying to figure out how to avoid getting a
    job.
        And I just really hope that we can, like, have
    conversations where we are not acting like people who want to
    feed their kids, or even bring their kids here so they can
    work, and have access to better lives, are trying to do
    something negative.
        I have notes. So as our Committee engages in serious
    discussions about the upcoming farm bill--no, I am having an
    on-the-fly moment. Good, that was the break I needed.
        As we begin to engage in serious discussions about the
    upcoming farm bill, I do want to emphasize that I am--I am
    personally committed to ensure that we pass a farm bill that
    both supports our farmers and producers, and also protects food
    security for America's households: low-income households, rural
    communities, our veterans, children, families, seniors. And
    beyond its immediate impacts on food security, SNAP is a
    critical economic driver, especially in rural communities. In
    Kansas, where I live, an average of $21 million in SNAP
    assistance was issued each month in the Fiscal Year 2020.
        The utilization of SNAP is an investment in our
    communities. By helping low-income families afford food, and
    ensuring that farmers, processors, distributors, and retailers
    are also able to be supported. As of 2020, we had about 2,000
    food retailers accepting SNAP in Kansas. And a nationwide study
    by the National Grocers' Association found that in 2020 SNAP
    was responsible for more than 200,000 U.S. grocery jobs,
    earning wages totaling more than $6.7 billion. I know that
    USDA's Economic Research Service has also found that during
    economic downturns, $1 utilized in SNAP generates more than
    $1.50 in economic activity.
        And I had questions that I wanted to ask, but the last
    thing I want to say, just speaking to this, is I have lived in
    a rural community where it took 35 minutes to get to a grocery
    store that often couldn't sell meat because they kept getting
    cited by regulators. And the next closest place was a Dollar
    General, and that was 48 minutes. And the next closest place
    was a Super Walmart that was 90 minutes from the town I lived
    in.
        And I just know that, like, when we are making these
    policies, none of us knows every single person's experience,
    but all of us should be trying to figure out how we make sure
    that people can eat, have jobs, feel secure, and not be
    dehumanized. And I think we can do all of that together. I will
    yield back.
        Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. The chair now recognizes Mr.
    Finstad for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Finstad. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
    Ranking Member Scott for holding this important hearing today,
    and thank you to all of our witnesses for being here. And I
    will just start my comments out by maybe acknowledging what I
    have heard a little bit from the folks on the other side of the
    aisle here, and I will just simply say I hear you. And one
    party in this country doesn't own compassion, and one party in
    this country doesn't own the willingness to give the shirt off
    your back for your neighbors that are in need. I think that
    that is something that we all can agree that we can work
    together on, and that we can hold as a common value.
        And I will just say that we can also--we can do that, but
    we can also talk about serious things like program integrity,
    and making sure that we are getting the best bang for the buck,
    that the taxpayers' dollars are going to those most vulnerable
    people. That should be something, again, that we, on both sides
    of the aisle, could agree on. So, I think there is some common
    ground here, and it is so important that we keep this
    conversation going, and we keep the bipartisan nature of a farm
    bill coalition intact, because it is going to take that to get
    this done.
        In 2001 we spent $17 billion on SNAP. This year SNAP is
    projected to cost taxpayers $124 billion, an increase of over
    700 percent. Meanwhile, food insecurity in this country has
    remained largely unchanged. So, I think that is some data that
    is important for us to know, that it is not because of a lack
    of investment. We have definitely put our money where our mouth
    is in this country.
        So, as we explore the conversation in regards to program
    integrity, and trying to make sure that we understand, are we
    getting the dollars to those that are in the most need, couple
    things that come into mind that I need to--maybe just to better
    understand. So, I will start with Ms. Royal. Americans in rural
    communities I represent, again, like I have said, would clearly
    give the shirt off their back to help a neighbor in need. And,
    really, our southern Minnesota philosophy is, we are all about
    giving folks and hand up, not just a handout. How do we help
    people get to that next level of life, and we are willing to do
    it.
        So, in your testimony today you referenced the rates of
    fraud in SNAP, but you also mentioned a little bit about the
    error rate. And I just want to maybe have you give us a quick
    view of what is error rate versus fraud. If you could do that,
    Ms. Royal?
        Ms. Royal. Error rate comes from quality control reviews
    that are mandated and done by each state, and it checks the
    accuracy of benefits that are issued by the state. The fraud
    rate is the amount of fraud that occurs in the program. The
    error rate is calculated and reported, but the fraud rate is
    really difficult to put your finger on, because there are so
    many different elements that make up that rate.
        So, states do report quarterly on our fraud, but they use a
    form--it is the 366B form. It is antiquated, it is inaccurate.
    It provides just a--not even a snapshot, but an excerpt of
    information that states have to deal with in regards to fraud.
        Mr. Finstad. Thank you for that. And, I am a simple farmer
    from southern Minnesota. Error rate, fraud rate, to me, it all
    is dollars that aren't going to where we said we want them to
    go, and that is to help the most vulnerable people in this
    country, whether it is error rate or fraud rate. And I think it
    is something that we have to--again, this is bipartisan, it
    should be a bipartisan concern, and an issue, and if we are
    focused on getting dollars to the most vulnerable, this is a
    way to make sure we can get more money to the most vulnerable.
    So, I appreciate you helping me understand that a little bit
    better.
        Dr. Rachidi, in your testimony you reflected on waivers,
    something that has long seen strong support from one side, and
    intense opposition from the other side. While I am sure there
    will be further debate on this, I would like to take a step
    back and talk about the role of the states. This is an
    administered program by the states, and it is such an important
    part of this.
        So this Administration reissued an Obama era guidance that
    reiterated the importance of states screening recipients for
    the able-bodied adult work requirements. When a state is
    waived, recipients lose a touchpoint, one that could have
    connected them to other services or other supports well beyond
    work. Would you share your thoughts on this issue, Dr. Rachidi?
        Dr. Rachidi. Yes. Thank you for the question. And I think
    this is an important point, because the problem with SNAP
    related to employment is not related to the individuals. The
    problem is related to the program, and the way the program is
    set up. I interacted with hundreds of SNAP participants
    throughout my tenure as Deputy Commissioner in New York City.
    The vast majority of them want to work, but they are frustrated
    that this program holds them back. And so, by waiving work
    requirements, it is exactly what you said. They are--you are
    removing a touchpoint.
        I don't think it is at all compassionate to send government
    checks to households that leaves them jobless, and in poor
    health, and not have a touchpoint with a government worker who
    is trying to help them. And I think that the approach of
    ignoring the issues in the households, and just sending them
    checks in the name of reducing hunger is not the right
    approach.
        Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. The gentleman's time has
    expired. I seek unanimous consent to enter into the record 7
    CFR 1400, a regulation promulgated by Secretary Vilsack in 2015
    \7\ regarding--actively engaged in farming requirements. This
    regulation requires that any producer receiving farm program
    payments to make a significant contribution of active personal
    labor and management and have a share of the risk on the farm
    operation. This regulation ensures that no one gets assistance
    unless they have significant involvement in the operation of
    the farm. That said, I now recognize Ms. Caraveo of Colorado
    for 5 minutes.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ Editor's note: the Federal Register final rule entitled,
    Payment Limitation and Payment Eligibility; Actively Engaged in
    Farming, is located on p. 149.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Ms. Caraveo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to
    thank Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member Scott for hosting
    today's incredibly important hearing on nutrition and thank you
    for--the panel for being here and sharing your testimony. I am
    a pediatrician, and as a pediatrician, I am very passionate,
    passionate about the health----
        Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Keep that then you.
        Ms. Caraveo.--and well-being of our nation's children. When
    we talk about the front lines, I have been on the front lines
    of taking care of children's medical needs for the last 15
    years, while dealing with their food insecurity, and being able
    to do little as a pediatrician, other than tell them that there
    is a supplemental program to help them with their hunger needs.
    That is why I will not support any changes in the farm bill
    that will take food away from low-income households which would
    harm our nation's children and families, including the ones
    that I saw in clinic every single day. I am deeply concerned
    about the proposals being pushed by Republicans that would put
    food assistance for more than four million children, and three
    million parents, grandparents, and other caretakers at risk.
        Let us take a step back and talk about why this is so
    important. Many people do not know that 42 percent of SNAP
    participants are children. That is 15.3 million children in the
    country, and in my home State of Colorado alone, nearly 180,000
    kids who participate in SNAP each month. Now, I understand that
    my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have said that
    they don't want to put anybody at risk at--hunger, in
    particular children, but when we make cuts to programs, they
    affect the kids that I see in clinic every single day.
        Now, about 80 children a week is what I saw in clinic every
    single week. About \2/3\ of those kids were on Medicaid, and
    therefore a good portion of them were on SNAP. So let us round
    that out, and say about 50 kids a week, every single week, who
    I saw who relied on this benefit to make sure that they did not
    go into hunger. When we talk about cuts, we are talking about
    pediatricians having serious conversations with families about
    hunger. I stop and think, which of those 50 kids, which of
    those 50 families, would I have to stop and say, ``Sorry, you
    don't get these benefits anymore''?
        Should it be the family of four kids who are now being
    raised by their grandparents because their parents have been
    victims to the opioid crisis, and now these parents, instead of
    thinking of retirement, are focusing on how am I going to feed
    these kids? Thank God for SNAP. Should it be the single parent
    who is trying to balance childcare, having a job or two, and
    still not making ends meet, and therefore says, thank God for
    SNAP. At least my kids are going to be fed every single day.
    Should it be the nuclear family that we think is doing
    everything right, yet is still living below the poverty line,
    and says, thank God for SNAP. At least I have $6 extra per kid
    per day to put something on the table.
        Now, people don't always think of pediatricians having to
    have these difficult conversations, but they do think of us
    talking about the science, so let us talk about science.
    Research shows that not having enough resources to meet
    children's basic needs leads to a host of negative outcomes
    throughout a child's life, including poor health and lower
    educational achievement.
        There are tons of issues, really, around children's health,
    whether it is including the risk of obesity, high blood
    pressure, heart disease and diabetes in adulthood that come
    from hunger and food instability, but is addressed by SNAP.
    But, Ms. Brown, what I would like to hear from you is--and I
    talk about the families that I have seen in clinic, and how
    SNAP impacts them. Can you tell me more about the families that
    you have seen with children? How would additional investments
    in SNAP make this program even more effective and impactful on
    the health of kids in your state and mine?
        Ms. Brown. Thank you very much for the question. We hear
    from families who talk about the mental health toll on
    themselves and on their children. We know that it--with
    research that we have from Chapin Hall out of Chicago--they
    talk about the connection between family stability and food
    security helping mitigate child protection cases. So, we know
    there are connections to other programs and other negative
    impacts on children, on families. We hear from families that
    are very excited to have a little bit of food, to buy bananas
    and milk. That is the number--those are the top two things that
    our retailers tell us that families on SNAP buy. So those small
    things make a really big difference in people's lives.
        I also just want to make a quick note that we have heard a
    little bit about food insecurity rates have not decreased,
    despite all of the extra funding being brought into the
    program. That is exactly what it is supposed to do. With all
    the extra funding being put in, food insecurity rates did not
    decrease, they stayed the same. That is exactly what SNAP is
    supposed to do.
        Ms. Caraveo. I thank you so much for those comments, and I
    just urge my colleagues to think about, when you make cuts,
    which of those 50 children would you choose to cut benefits
    from? Thank you.
        Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. The chair now recognize Mr.
    Bacon for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Bacon. Thank you, Mr. Austin. Thanks for all of our
    panelists being here today. The evidence is very clear. The
    majority of Americans think able-bodied adults without children
    should have to work, or seek work, or get the training to get a
    job. And it is not even close. I mean, we had a poll just a
    month ago from Axios saying \2/3\ of American support work
    requirements, to include half of all Democrats. A poll a month
    before that from the Center of Excellence poll showed 74
    percent of Americans support work requirements, to include the
    majority of Democrats.
        So, again, we are talking about able-bodied adults without
    children. And we have record low unemployment, we have a record
    of number people trying to hire, and we have lots of
    opportunities for folks to get the skills and the training they
    need to get these jobs. This is very important to America's
    economy and our economic growth.
        My first question is to Dr. Rachidi. We hear from those--
    and this is in the previous Congress--that those that have been
    on SNAP, there is a point where they earn one more dollar, that
    they could lose hundreds of dollars of benefits. We call it the
    Cliff Effect. And sometimes this is a disincentive for full
    time work or promotions. I would like to get your opinion on
    this, as--I mean, we have heard experts in this Committee say
    this, but I am curious to get your perception and your
    feedback.
        Dr. Rachidi. Yes, it is a great question. Benefit cliffs,
    or we also call it marginal effective tax rates, because it
    actually kind of phases out over time, is an issue, and if you
    talk to state administrators, or state groups who work with
    SNAP participants, it really is one of the number one issues,
    because it does disincentivize employment because people feel
    that they can't increase their work effort or increase hours
    because they will lose some of their benefits.
        One way to counteract that is to phase out the benefits
    more slowly. SNAP currently is phased out, but there are some
    additional things that could be done to try to smooth that
    benefit decrease as earnings increase.
        Mr. Bacon. We would sure like to have your expertise so we
    could do this better, because we want to incentivize
    promotions, full time work, but to ask someone that is in a
    lower-income area to say, okay, if I get this promotion, am I
    actually going backwards, it is not advantageous, and I know we
    could do better. And I think with that I will just--I will
    yield back the balance of my time. I appreciate you all being
    here today.
        Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. The chair now recognizes Ms.
    Gluesenkamp Perez for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Perez. Good luck with that one. Thank you. Thank you,
    Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. That is about as good as a
    Georgia boy could do.
        Ms. Perez. I would just like to contextualize my
    perspective today. I was raised in the church, I am a proud
    Christian, and Matthew 25:35 says, ``For I was poor''--``For I
    was hungry, and you gave me food. I was thirsty, and you gave
    me something to drink. Brothers and sisters, whoever''--
    ``whatever you did for the least of these, you did for me.''
    And I believe that Christians have a mandate to feed the poor,
    and this is a mandate that is not just for the benefit of the
    hungry, but is also a benefit to our own--it is a reflection of
    our own morality. And it is a reflection of us submitting to
    God's will to eschew greed and take care of people.
        So, reducing hunger is a mandate of Christian scripture. It
    has also been a goal of the Federal Government for decades.
    And, I am not a legislator by training, I fix cars, so I had to
    do some research on SNAP, and I think it actually is a really
    elegant bill. The original 1964 SNAP bill (Pub. L. 88-525, The
    Food Stamp Act of 1964) has three parts to it, reducing hunger,
    supporting agricultural markets, and increasing the nutritional
    quality of the American diet. And SNAP is certainly one of the
    best tools we have for reducing poverty.
        But rural communities like mine are actually 23 percent
    more likely to be enrolled in SNAP than their urban
    counterparts: 45,000 families in my district in southwest
    Washington rely on SNAP. And let me tell you something that is
    very deeply concerning to me. Right now, every dollar that
    Americans spend on food, only 14.5 make it back to the farm:
    14.5 of every dollar spent on food makes it back to the farm.
    And I don't think it is a coincidence by any stretch of the
    imagination that we are seeing more rural dependence on SNAP
    benefits at the same time that we are seeing a lowering of the
    dollars that make it back to the farms, these rural
    agricultural producers.
        So, my question is how do we circle this economy? How do we
    use SNAP to feed back in to supporting rural agriculture as we
    are supporting these families who are experiencing hunger? So,
    Ms. Brown, my question is to you. How can we get more of these
    dollars back into our agricultural producers?
        Ms. Brown. Thank you for the question. Certainly, incentive
    programs, such as the Market Bucks Program, or other similar
    farmers' market programs are a really good option for that. I
    think any way that we can help incentivize both health and
    nutrition, but encourage folks to use SNAP and, whether it is--
    in our state it is state legislative dollars that help match
    that, that is a great benefit to our rural farmers' markets. I
    speak about that all the time.
        I also just wanted to thank you for your work on cars.
    Transportation is a big issue in rural communities as well, and
    I just wanted to acknowledge that as well, that--the comments
    about the distance to grocery stores are--is absolutely
    critically important.
        Ms. Perez. Thank you so much. And could you elaborate on
    your testimony about the support SNAP provides to workers in
    rural areas in Minnesota?
        Ms. Brown. Certainly. So especially--I--well, it was
    mentioned a little bit earlier about retailers, and the jobs
    that help with the grocers, but we have heard directly from
    grocers that say, without SNAP benefits coming into the
    community, the local grocery store would close. And so all of
    that spreads into the community. Every single dollar that SNAP
    utilizes frees up extra dollars. So, if you are in a household,
    and you, for instance, need to pay for your children's shoes,
    school supplies, if you have SNAP benefits, that frees up extra
    dollars, which then goes into your local economy.
        Ms. Perez. Thank you so much. Thank you to all of our
    witnesses.
        Ms. Brown. Thank you.
        Ms. Perez. I yield back.
        The Chairman [presiding.] I thank the gentlelady from
    yielding back. And, before I recognize Mr. Baird for 5 minutes
    of questioning, I just request unanimous consent to submit for
    the record a recent Department of Justice release that is
    related to SNAP fraud.\8\ And, it is from March 2, 2023. And,
    without objection, the article will be submitted. And now
    recognize Mr. Baird for 5 minutes.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ Editor's note: the U.S. Attorney's Office, Central District of
    California press release entitled, 15 Arrested in Law Enforcement
    Operation Targeting Fraudulent Withdrawal of Benefits Designated for
    Low-Income Families, is located on p. 166.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Mr. Baird. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member, and
    for all you witnesses to be here, got a research background. I
    have been in production agriculture all my life. The
    interesting thing to me that I want to get your comments on
    here in a minute is the--our ability--the technology that is
    advancing agriculture--production agriculture--I mean, the kind
    of crops that we can raise today, and the quality, and the
    ability to use CRISPR techniques, and really define the
    genetics of what we produce.
        So, my question is, and I am going to start with Dr.
    Stover, you indicated that production agriculture could really
    contribute to human health, and I really want to emphasize
    that, because I think we could do things in production
    agriculture that really would contribute to human health, and I
    would just like your thoughts on that.
        Dr. Stover. There is absolutely no question about that, and
    I just want to go back to a point that was made about the
    amount of food income that actually--or food purchasing that
    goes back--the dollars that go back to the farmer is really
    small. And, again, that is because we have an agriculture
    system that is built around reducing hunger to make food in
    abundance so that it is as affordable as possible.
        We have the--in that model we have this externality, if you
    will, of really high healthcare costs, so that is where the
    money is in agriculture. It is in the healthcare sector,
    because of diet quality. And so how do we reimagine a food
    supply that both addresses hunger and addresses health? And as
    you mentioned, we have so many tools today that we can make the
    food supply whatever we want it to be. We can use CRISPR, we
    can use genetics, genomics to change micronutrient composition.
    We can play with caloric density. There are so many things we
    can do, but we have to incentivize that in a way that
    production agriculture will adopt these because the model they
    are in now, margins are very low because of that endpoint of
    keeping hunger as low as possible.
        And so, this can be done. We need a different economic
    model, and we have to somehow bring together healthcare
    economics and ag economics to make this work, because otherwise
    we are going to continue to lose a lot of our precious farmland
    to more profitable purposes, like solar panels.
        Mr. Baird. I couldn't agree with you more, so I would like
    to continue on with--conversation with you, but do any of the
    other witnesses have thoughts about--in that area? I am talking
    about the nutrition that we can create in production
    agriculture. And I am not sure very many people are aware of
    that, but we can alter the kinds of grains, as he just
    mentioned, so I would like for us to put some emphasis in that
    area, because it is important to production agriculture, and,
    as he mentioned, it is important to save the farmers and
    ranchers. So if anyone else has a comment, I would appreciate
    it.
        Mr. Hodel. Yes, I will just comment a little bit, and maybe
    just from the data standpoint of what we found in eastern
    Kentucky. So, we have sent Family Food boxes there with
    chicken, potatoes, mini oranges, milk, butter, apples, and
    juice boxes. And I guess the comment would be is--food
    recipients, they absolutely desire and seek nutrition. Like,
    they are not avoiding it, they are not trying to use their
    dollars elsewhere. If they have a choice, nutrition is
    absolutely high on their list.
        We surveyed them, and they said 81 percent were very
    satisfied, and 84--with what they received in the boxes. And
    then we also asked them about health, and 84 percent responded
    and--saying it was very healthy. And so we gave--we got
    confirmation that those that are in rural, remote areas that
    are receiving nutritious food boxes with produce, and dairy,
    and meat are extremely grateful, and thankful to have that
    nutrition brought to their doorstep.
        Mr. Baird. Absolutely. Any other? I have one more question.
    Midwest Food Bank, I am really impressed with your----
        The Chairman. Your microphone, I think your microphone is
    off.
        Mr. Baird. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I need all the help I can
    get in this day and age. Anyway, I don't know how much time I
    am getting into, but, Mr. Hodel, I am impressed with the
    Midwest Food Bank. You are doing that without any government
    help and assistance, so my question really is how are you able
    to do that? I mean--and how does that work? Quickly. We have 22
    seconds.
        Mr. Hodel. Yes.
        So our model, again, built around volunteers, and so we
    keep a very low staff, a very low period cost structure. We
    seek private donations. We work with corporations, small
    businesses, large businesses, churches. So, we are very
    thankful for the donated dollars that come help support our
    operation. It costs about $2 million to run one of our
    locations, and we distribute about $60 million of food back
    into that community.
        Mr. Baird. Fantastic. I thank you very much, and I yield
    back, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize
    the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Davis, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Davis of North Carolina. Thank you so much, Mr.
    Chairman, and to the Ranking Member for having us together
    today. There is an issue that remains close to my heart, and
    that is veterans--our veterans. Those soldiers, sailors,
    Marines, airmen, who have worn the uniform in service to our
    country. Research shows that food insecurity particularly
    impacts veterans who have recently left military service with
    lower final salaries, and those who had lived in rural or low-
    income areas with limited access to food. USDA recently found
    that working age veterans face 7.4 times more significant risk
    of food insecurity than the general population, and about \1/3\
    of all working age disabled veterans are food-insecure.
        Food insecurity is a critical issue in eastern North
    Carolina, rural America, and across the country. North
    Carolina's First Congressional District alone is the home of
    over 46,000 veterans, and in North Carolina veterans are nearly
    twice as likely to have a disability than non-veterans, with 30
    percent of the state's veterans reporting a disability in 2019.
        The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program serves as a
    safety net for many veterans. On average, about 1.2 million
    veteran households participate annually. Unfortunately, far too
    many eligible veterans do not participate in the program. A
    recent CDC survey (National Health Interview Survey) found that
    nearly 60 percent of eligible veterans do not participate. The
    recent debt limit agreement had a critical new exemption from
    SNAP's time limit on benefits for veterans, which should help
    ensure more veterans can access SNAP's essential food
    assistance.
        I would like to be clear that my support for legislation
    that helps Americans, and those in particular: children,
    families, seniors, and, yes indeed, our veterans. So, I would
    like to direct just a couple questions to Ms. Brown. How do you
    think the new time limit exemption will help veterans?
        Ms. Brown. Thank you, Representative. I am excited about
    this prioritization towards veterans. In our state right now,
    we actually do not know how many veterans are currently on the
    SNAP Program. It is not a code that we have in our system. So,
    with this prioritization, this will encourage additional
    partnerships with Veterans' Affairs, and other like-minded
    groups, and will allow us to track and prioritize this
    population.
        We do know that many veterans have high unemployment rates
    for their spouses. There is some stigma associated with
    applying for the SNAP Program, so, again, this partnership, and
    I think coordinated with SNAP outreach, will really focus in on
    this population.
        Mr. Davis of North Carolina. Okay. And then my follow-up
    question here, what other policies should Congress consider to
    reach and address the needs of America's heroes, our veterans?
        Ms. Brown. Thank you. In addition to increasing SNAP
    outreach, I wonder about categorical eligibility, identifying
    veterans, and making some type of policy impact so that they
    are eligible for the program, depending on their status. I
    think that would reach the population that we are trying to
    reach and will encourage more participants to apply for the
    program.
        I will say, in Minnesota, while we haven't tracked it on
    the SNAP side of things, it has been a big focus effort on the
    homeless side, and they, in fact, are eliminating veteran
    homelessness, so we have a lot of good lessons to learn there.
        Mr. Davis of North Carolina. Okay. Thank you so much. And,
    Mr. Chairman, I would conclude today by saying to those who are
    present, and have served, thank you for your service to our
    country. And as we continue to do our work here, let us
    continue to fight for those who fought for us. I yield back.
        The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Davis, would you yield?
        Mr. Davis of North Carolina. Yes.
        The Chairman. A little bit of follow-up on the question he
    asked. What President Biden insisted we put into the debt
    ceiling with regard to the three groups are there, homeless,
    veterans and, quite frankly, those children, they are aging out
    of foster care. Is it helpful, the fact that under--the
    provisions that the President insists to be in there? These
    folks are not going to be eligible for SNAP education and
    career and technical education benefits that other individuals
    up to age 54 would be.
        Ms. Brown. So, I think your question is: they won't be
    eligible for SNAP education with this, and career----
        The Chairman. That is correct.
        Ms. Brown. Right.
        The Chairman. Because they are automatically going to be
    waived from those work--job opportunities.
        Ms. Brown. Right.
        The Chairman. And we will talk offline.
        Ms. Brown. Sure.
        The Chairman. His time has expired, and I try to be a good
    example, so--thank you. I am pleased to recognize, for 5
    minutes, the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Feenstra.
        Mr. Feenstra. Thank you, Chairman Thompson, and Ranking
    Member Scott, and thank you for our panel today. I greatly
    appreciate what you are doing. I have read your testimonies,
    and they are very impressive. With more than 80 percent of the
    expected cost of the farm bill going toward nutrition programs,
    Title IV is very important to us. It is--and I am glad we are
    holding this hearing just to discuss it.
        I heard Jerome Powell, the Head of the Federal Reserve,
    talk probably about 6 weeks ago, and he said the reason we have
    pretty significant inflation right now is because of
    employment, meaning that we have ten million jobs available,
    and we only have two million people unemployed. And the cause
    for the inflation is that, obviously, work--the workforce is in
    demand, high demand. So, you have businesses looking for
    workers, then they have to pay more, and--which is causing
    inflation. So, this is my concern.
        Dr. Rachidi, sorry, I didn't mean to mess up your name
    there--you outlined that, in 2019, 30 percent of the able-
    bodied adults without dependents between the ages of 18 to 49
    worked while receiving SNAP, meaning about 70 percent of the
    recipients did not work at the time. Now, I really don't want
    to go into that, but what I do want to go into is how can we
    use SNAP, right? How can we use--and work together
    collaboratively to connect those unemployed workers with
    employers begging for workers, and causing this inflation? Can
    you reflect on that, or have any ideas on that?
        Dr. Rachidi. Sure. So, my experience working within SNAP in
    New York City, I certainly found that work requirements can be
    useful in the sense that they introduce the conversation about
    employment with SNAP participants. And I think that that
    crucial touchpoint, with individuals who obviously are
    experiencing temporary financial insecurity, coming in--
    employment should be one of the main parts of the conversation,
    and how to help that individual achieve, escape poverty and
    achieve upward mobility.
        So, I think it is crucial to bring in employment. And then,
    having that discussion about employment, combined with the work
    requirement, will ensure that those individuals are looking for
    work, and can meet the needs of the broader labor market.
        Mr. Feenstra. Yes, I appreciate that. And I just think--and
    I am trying to--this is a positive moment, I think that we have
    this stress on our economy right now, and how do we work
    collaboratively to incentivize, and we want to bring people out
    of poverty. That has got to be our number one goal. How do we
    do that, how do we create that? And I think we have a wonderful
    opportunity to do that here.
        Dr. Rachidi, I have another question. According to the
    National Skills Coalition, in 2018, 52 percent of jobs require
    education that falls between high school diploma and a 4 year
    degree, but only 43 percent of workers have the skills. So,
    what we are saying here is that 43 percent of society do not
    have the skills or ability for the jobs that are required.
    Again--and you sort of noted this--is there a way that we can
    create training programs within SNAP to encourage
    apprenticeships or trade schools? Can we--again, I am not
    looking for partnerships here. I am looking for anything to
    help bring people to the next level, and get them jobs, and get
    them out of poverty.
        Dr. Rachidi. I think there definitely are opportunities to
    do that through SNAP education and training. Part of the
    problem, though, is there is a lot of SNAP education and
    training dollars that are spent on programs that are not
    effective.
        Mr. Feenstra. Yes.
        Dr. Rachidi. And so, if we could discontinue funding for
    programs that are not effective, and move it to programs that
    are effective, like partnerships with community college, that
    actually ensure SNAP participants get a credential, and can get
    a sustainable job, that would be a positive--in the positive
    direction, and discontinue programs that are really proven to
    be ineffective.
        Mr. Feenstra. Yes. Thank you. Thank you for those comments.
    Ms. Royal, in your testimony you mentioned that the Food and
    Nutrition Service reports fraud rates within SNAP are less than
    one percent, which is wonderful, but your organization has
    estimated fraud rates range from eight to 40 percent of
    households currently enrolled. That is quite an extreme change.
    I am just wondering, could FNS be addressing these issues of
    fraud today, and why are they not currently prioritizing this?
    To me, this is sort of a moment that we need to look at and
    say, okay, we need to be effective with our dollars, and are we
    truly doing that?
        Ms. Royal. I would love FNS to take more of a look at
    fraud. I think that would be fantastic. Asking why they don't,
    I mean, that has been a topic of discussions that I have had
    for a very long time. The SNAP budget spends \1/20\ of 1
    percent on fraud detection, prevention, and prosecution.
        Mr. Feenstra. Yes.
        Ms. Royal. Again, they hold to that one percent fraud rate,
    but even with the one percent fraud rate, \1/20\ of 1 percent
    doesn't seem to even address that.
        Mr. Feenstra. I think you answered my question for me.
    Absolutely. Thank you, Ms. Royal. And I yield back, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Mr. Finstad [presiding.] Thank you. All right. We will go
    over to Ms. Tokuda for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Tokuda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member. Upon
    coming to Congress, I wanted to join the Agriculture Committee
    because I saw a great opportunity and hope in the 2023 Farm
    Bill. It was a chance to support our agricultural producers,
    increase our food security, strengthen our economy, feed our
    people.
        So, you can imagine my anger and disgust as I have watched
    the farm bill become weaponized by House Republicans, including
    Speaker McCarthy, as a way to literally take food out of the
    mouths of our older Americans. In fact, Members of this
    Committee have put out proposals that would cut SNAP benefits
    and put at risk many of the adults that we have in our
    communities. As many as two million older adults would be at
    risk of losing their SNAP benefits.
        I want to focus on something that is close to my heart as
    well, senior hunger. Older Americans are among our country's
    most food-insecure populations. We should be making it easier,
    not harder, for them to access food assistance. Rates of food
    insecurity among older Americans remains higher than pre-Great
    Recession levels. A study by Feeding America found that in
    2021, and you know it has only gotten worse, approximately 5.5
    million seniors were food-insecure, with 2.1 million seniors
    having very-low-food security.
        Let me put it in simpler terms. Our seniors, our
    grandparents, our elderly neighbors, our retirees, they go to
    sleep hungry. They wake up hungry. On a fixed income, they are
    forced to choose between food and medicine, a roof over their
    head. One of my constituents on the big island, over in Hawaii,
    he was kicked off of SNAP because of a $7 increase in his
    Social Security benefit as a result of this year's COLA
    increase: $7. That can't even buy you a dozen eggs in Hawaii.
    That left this senior with zero SNAP support.
        Significantly cutting funding for SNAP will result in
    millions of low-income adults losing their food assistance,
    including seniors, children, families, people with
    disabilities. Penny wise, pound foolish. The consequences of
    these cuts are far more devastating than any proposed budgetary
    savings. I will not support legislation that takes food away
    from low-income households.
        In my home State of Hawaii, 30,000 older adults participate
    in SNAP each month, and this is just half of the total number
    of seniors in Hawaii who are eligible to participate in the
    program. Last month, while I was visiting many of our SNAP
    processing centers throughout our islands, I heard countless
    stories from family members and SNAP workers of seniors who are
    not on SNAP, but they could be, and they should be.
        Too many seniors in Hawaii, and across our country, are not
    accessing SNAP benefits because they have difficulties
    navigating the application system, we heard a little bit about
    it today, or don't want to apply because they feel that they
    would be taking limited funding away from other families in
    need. And while that is admirable, it is a false choice. Let us
    be clear, that is a false choice. Seniors should not be in put
    in a position to either choose between feeding themselves or
    their communities.
        This issue isn't unique in my state. In 2020 it is
    estimated five million older Americans who qualified to receive
    SNAP were not enrolled in the program. This means close to
    three out of every five seniors eligible for SNAP is missing
    out on critical nutrition assistance that can provide them not
    only with food, but the means, the greater means, to lift
    themselves and their loved ones out of poverty. So, again, let
    me put it in very simple terms. Millions of elderly Americans,
    our seniors, our grandparents, our retirees, our neighbors,
    they are going to bed hungry. They wake up hungry.
        Ms. Brown, why is SNAP participation among eligible older
    Americans so low, and how can we improve access to SNAP to
    ensure the program reaches those Americans in greatest need?
    How about demonstration projects, like the Elderly Simplified
    Application Project, that helps increase SNAP participation, or
    ease the application process for older adults? And are we
    taking into consideration access issues in our rural and remote
    communities? We heard about it today, language barriers,
    something that is an issue with my constituents, and broadband
    access, and our seniors' ability to navigate even simple online
    or telephonic platforms. I would love your thoughts on that.
        Ms. Brown. Sure. Thank you. Certainly, we support any
    simplified application process for seniors. We recognize and
    hear some of the same stories that you have heard from seniors
    that are reluctant to apply for SNAP because they are worried
    about taking away from somebody else. I will say that in
    Minnesota, when we lifted our asset tests--so I think asset
    flexibilities are incredibly important that was the number one
    reason why seniors were not applying for SNAP.
        Ms. Tokuda. Yes.
        Ms. Brown. And when we lifted that asset test, we were able
    to see a SNAP increase from a rate of 25 percent to 58 percent
    for our senior population. So that is a significant option. I
    think also looking at medical deductions. Expanding some of the
    medical deductions that could be utilized would also benefit
    our senior population.
        Ms. Tokuda. Thank you very much. I know I am out of time.
    Those are all things we really need to take into consideration.
    Senior hunger is real, my colleagues, and we have to do more to
    make sure they can access SNAP. I yield back.
        Mr. Finstad. Thank you. I now recognize the gentlewoman
    from Texas, Ms. De La Cruz, for 5 minutes.
        Ms. De La Cruz. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I think we
    can all agree that integrity and accountability are important
    when it comes to SNAP and other benefits, whether it is fraud,
    criminal activity, or state activity, or state issues that
    cause this type of fraud or criminal activity, we all want to
    understand why and how we can do better. We want to make sure
    that it is mitigated.
        Ms. Royal, I am going to address this question to you. Can
    you flesh out some of your ideas to help mitigate some of these
    issues?
        Ms. Royal. Sure. Identity verification on the front-end of
    an application would be very, very important. I discussed, very
    briefly----
        Ms. De La Cruz. And, can you please expand on that? Because
    we heard that they do have to show their Social Security card.
    What do you mean by identity verification specifically?
        Ms. Royal. The ability to leverage technology to verify
    that when somebody presents themself, that they are actually
    who they say they are. That their Social Security Number
    belongs to them. That they are eligible to receive benefits,
    meeting all of the different criteria. That they are not
    receiving benefits in duplicate states at one time. To verify
    that members that the--they have listed in their household
    exist. To verify, perhaps, people who are not listed on the
    application do live in the household. So having--being able to
    leverage technology to help that verification process would be
    very significant.
        I mentioned increasing the retention amount. It seems to be
    a really simple way to do that. So, in previous years, the
    retention amount from the dollars that states recovered from
    overpaid benefits was 50 percent. That has been reduced down to
    30 percent in fraud--or 35 percent in fraud claims. But
    increasing that back up to 50 percent would provide the funding
    that would allow states to purchase and be able to access that
    type of technology.
        Tying that money--making sure that those retention dollars
    are mandated to be used for the prevention, detection, and
    prosecution of fraud. In many states that retention money goes
    into the General Fund, and is used elsewhere, so the benefits--
    or the fraud units don't have the benefit of that money.
        Ms. De La Cruz. So let me ask you something. Right now, as
    it stands, can we--does the system allow for you to check with
    multiple states to see if there are benefits, or is it just at
    the word of the beneficiary of these programs?
        Ms. Royal. We don't have a way to check. So, there are
    states that still utilize or still have access to the original
    NAC project. I believe there are six. So, the rest of the
    states, we have to rely on that self-declaration in an
    application that a recipient has received benefits in another
    state. And when they provide that information, then the issuing
    state can contact the previous state and make sure that,
    again--isn't a problem.
        But it is also a problem when people intentionally omit the
    answer to that because they want to receive benefits in
    multiple states. And then our hands are tied. We don't have a
    mechanism to find that type of false statement.
        Ms. De La Cruz. So, as I am hearing, it is really just a
    self-declaration? That is the only way to find out if someone
    is receiving benefits in multiple states?
        Ms. Royal. For the most part, yes, that is correct.
        Ms. De La Cruz. Typically, people who are intentionally
    trying to take advantage of the situation won't self-declare
    that I imagine. Moving forward, these retention dollars, you
    said that it was reduced from 50 percent to 30 percent. When
    was that reduced?
        Ms. Royal. 35 percent----
        Ms. De La Cruz. Or 35 percent.
        Ms. Royal. It is in footnotes in our written testimony. I
    don't recall the specific year.
        Ms. De La Cruz. Yes.
        Ms. Royal. But, again, not only was it reduced, but there
    are no mandates of how the money is used.
        Ms. De La Cruz. Okay. So, what I am hearing is increase it
    back up to the 50 percent, but also giving mandates as to where
    that money is used once it is recovered?
        Ms. Royal. Right. And I think it is really important to say
    that 50 percent has to do with fraud claims. So, the state does
    the fraud investigation, they prove that fraud has occurred, a
    false statement has occurred. They establish the claim, they
    collect that claim, and then the money that they collect, they
    split with USDA. So, again, we are recommending that we have a
    50/50 split, and that there is a mandate that the $50--or the
    50 percent that we recover be used for the prevention,
    detection, and prosecution of fraud.
        Ms. De La Cruz. Thank you very much. With that, I yield
    back.
        Mr. Finstad. Thank you. I now recognize the gentlewoman
    from Illinois, Ms. Budzinski, for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Budzinski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
    Ranking Member, and thank you to the panelists for being here
    today. Before I start with some questions, I thought it would
    be important for my colleagues and the panelists to hear a few
    stories from my constituents who rely on the support that SNAP
    provides. And, really, I think you will hear I am amplifying
    what my colleague, Congresswoman Tokuda, really eloquently
    stated around the importance for seniors and older Americans to
    SNAP benefits. And so, I am going to highlight a few of my
    constituents that are older Americans, and their stories, and
    that importance of the SNAP benefit.
        Kathy, a 66 year old from Decatur, Illinois, lives on a
    fixed income of only $1,088 a month. She gets $98 a month from
    SNAP and pays around $100 on food each month. As someone living
    with diabetes, Kathy shared with me that a lot of the high-carb
    foods offered at local food banks send her blood sugar through
    the roof. She uses her SNAP benefits to buy fresh fruits and
    vegetables that help her to stay healthy, and that SNAP
    benefits, she said, are a matter of life and death for her.
        James, a 66 year old from Urbana, Illinois, shared that the
    $55 a month that he receives in SNAP benefits barely help him
    get by. He told my office that: ``If I didn't have SNAP, I
    would starve.'' And Don, a 56 year old from east St. Louis,
    told us that he doesn't know what he would do without the $100
    he receives each month through SNAP. It is the only way that he
    can put food on his table. These are the stories of my
    constituents, as I mentioned, who depend on SNAP, each of them
    over the age of 50 years old.
        Nationally, SNAP serves about 5.3 million households with
    elderly individuals each month. That is nearly 30 percent of
    all SNAP households. In my home State of Illinois, about
    240,000 older adults receive food assistance each month from
    SNAP. Far too many of our nation's seniors struggle with food
    insecurity each month, and this crisis is even more dire for
    older adults living with disabilities.
        In 2021, older adults with disabilities had food insecurity
    rates more than three times as high as those without
    disabilities. Even among those who are food-insecure, seniors
    with disabilities are more than two times as likely to be food-
    insecure, and are three times as likely to be very-food-
    insecure than seniors without disabilities.
        SNAP is a lifeline for seniors and older adults, helping to
    address food insecurity, and improve the quality of life for
    its participants. SNAP participation has been linked to lower
    healthcare costs, including lower Medicaid and Medicare costs.
    A study of 60,000 low-income seniors recently found that SNAP
    participants are 23 percent less likely to enter a nursing
    home, and four percent less likely to be hospitalized in the
    year after receiving SNAP than non-participants. And that is
    why I will not support any policies that result in food being
    taken away from Kathy, James, Don, and the many other older
    adults in my district who depend on SNAP to put food on their
    tables for their families.
        And so, in the remaining moments--time that I have, I did
    want to ask Ms. Brown--you elaborated a little bit--
    Congresswoman Tokuda, my colleague, had asked you about
    specifically what we can be doing to break down barriers for
    seniors to access, and I know you mentioned simplifying the
    application process. I was actually also going to highlight the
    medical deduction. But are there any other ideas that you might
    offer to us to help us make sure that seniors, some of our most
    vulnerable population, get access to SNAP benefits?
        Ms. Brown. I think the important thing in this
    conversation--and I appreciate all the stories, because they
    are exactly, like I said, what we hear from participants every
    single day--is that participants have an extremely complex
    life. Now, one participant, when you speak to one, right, it
    doesn't explain all the SNAP participation across the board,
    and so, as we think about all of the flexibilities that are
    important for families, and for seniors, and for disabled
    individuals, it is important to think about the barriers that
    they face, and ensure that we have policies that allow for
    flexibilities to really serve those that need it.
        Ms. Budzinski. Great. I will yield back my time. Thank you.
        Mr. Finstad. Thank you. I now recognize the gentleman from
    California, Mr. Duarte, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Duarte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to talk
    more broadly about abundance and access implications of our
    farm policy. We have a lot biofuels, a lot of acres of farming,
    a lot of farming resource, a lot of food resources going into
    biofuels, a lot of restrictions on animal protein systems. We
    can see Europe we are shutting down whole industries of dairy
    and swine. I am from California. I represent a district that
    is--we looked at it--the 18th highest poverty level in America.
    It is a rural farm district. I am a farmer by background.
        And so, I am very interested, particularly if--Dr. Stover
    and Dr. Rachidi, what do you see as the broader implications of
    our farm policy in general? We had the EPA Director, Mr. Regan,
    in here a few weeks ago, mentioned biofuels 32 times. We
    counted them. And I just think the implications for that, in
    terms of typing up our food production resources to produce
    biofuels, because of what I believe are sentimental reasons, is
    really going to come down hard on working families and their
    food access, especially when it comes to producing protein that
    diversifies their diets.
        And I am very concerned that this might be the first
    generation in America that is actually moving our diet away
    from additional produce, and protein, and diverse nutrition on
    the dinner plate, towards a higher starch-based diet, which we
    all share concerns of--health concerns with. I don't think we
    can bioengineer our way around that. So, I will start with you,
    Dr. Stover, and then I would like to go to Angela Rachidi.
        Dr. Stover. When we use food to promote health and prevent
    chronic disease, which is a major initiative that was started
    at NIH by former NIH Director Francis Collins, what we
    recognize is that in the diet/health relationship, one size
    does not fit all. So, when hunger is the outcome, everyone
    responds the same. When you have a health outcome, and you want
    to use food as the solution to healthcare costs, people respond
    differently to foods. This relates to our past history as
    humans, where human populations emerged all over the world.
    Those that survived and thrived adapted to local food systems.
    This is why you see hemochromatosis in Scandinavia, et cetera.
        We need a highly diversified food system to meet the
    nutrient needs of all individuals. If we want to use food and
    agriculture to promote health, we have to understand that
    better. But in the meantime, we need a highly diversified food
    system, and we need to put health first.
        Mr. Duarte. Are we displacing our highly diversified food
    system with commodity crops, farm policy, and biofuels?
        Dr. Stover. And I would agree with that statement. I think
    that that is driven by the incentives. We have to look at the
    incentives that we have that farmers and ranchers are
    businesspeople. They are going to make decisions based on the
    business. If we want to use agriculture for health, we have to
    get the incentives right?
        Mr. Duarte. Dr. Rachidi? Thank you.
        Dr. Rachidi. Yes, I would also agree with that, and I will
    just say--I mean, you mentioned that you worry that we are
    moving towards this diet of highly starch--I mean, we are
    already there, right? Like, we--we have seen that happen, and
    it is having devastating consequences on health for
    individuals, but it is also hurting farmers because it is
    changing production, it is changing how they farm, and it is
    also hurting the Earth, to your point.
        So, I completely agree with Dr. Stover that we need just
    kind of a wholesale look at our food system, and certainly
    incentives and disincentives that are put into the farm bill
    play a big role in that.
        Mr. Duarte. Thank you. I am also concerned that our green
    energy, our movement towards biofuels, our movement away from
    carbon energy, is limiting opportunity for the American working
    family, that lower-income working families are having their
    opportunities greatly limited because we can't power the grid.
        We know that other economies that are growing faster than
    ours have emerging middle and upper classes that are competing
    with our working families for the produce, and protein, and
    dietary diversity that we produce. I mean, not in California.
    This is a global food system. In a global food system, the most
    desired foods will go to who--those who can pay the most for
    them. And do you share any concern that our--disadvantaging our
    economic growth through certain green energy policies,
    primarily, is hurting our working families, and indirectly
    hurting their diet options?
        Dr. Stover. So, my comment to that is we need to support
    agriculture in all of its forms for reasons of innovation, and
    to meet the needs of local communities. And so, in my mind,
    this is more of a local governance, local economy effect,
    where--what type of an agriculture system do you need for a
    given nation, for a given state, that is going to best support
    the goals of that individual state?
        Mr. Duarte. Thank you. I think it is time for me to yield
    back.
        Mr. Finstad. Thank you. I now recognize the gentleman from
    Illinois, Mr. Sorensen, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Sorensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Like many other
    Members up here, SNAP has served as an essential safety net for
    my constituents, and boosts income for the agriculture
    industry. That is why I do not support changes to SNAP that
    will take away food from older Americans, children, families,
    veterans, people with disabilities, in the farm bill or
    otherwise. Cutting benefits would also harm our nation's
    farmers, who are supported by programs like SNAP and incentives
    within it.
        More than 21 percent of households in my district in
    western Illinois participate in SNAP. These are neighbors of
    mine. They are children, they are veterans, senior citizens.
    They are disabled, folks who are struggling, or just folks who
    are down on their luck. It is our responsibility in Congress to
    help people, not take the help away. And, unfortunately, many
    eligible Americans don't even enroll in SNAP. And the U.S.
    Census Bureau has found that one in six eligible Americans did
    not participate in the program, and I believe that that is an
    area where SNAP needs innovation, it needs modernization.
        And so my question, I will start with you, Ms. Brown. Based
    on your experience in Minnesota, what are some of the obstacles
    that people face when they sign up for SNAP, and how have these
    barriers affected your team's ability to be efficient with the
    program?
        Ms. Brown. Thank you for the question. Certainly,
    technology has been a big conversation today, and I think
    technology has not--we have not had a modern system across all
    of our nation, and we have not been able to keep up, right,
    with other technologies. And so certainly access is a barrier,
    as folks try to apply for the program. Understanding that SNAP
    is available to them is also a problem. And we face stigma
    across the nation as well, and so, depending how the
    conversation goes, right, folks may feel shame, and feel that
    this isn't a program that they should be applying for when, in
    fact, we do want folks to apply, and to be on the program to
    stabilize, and move their way to economic self-sufficiency.
        Mr. Sorensen. Do you believe that the need is greater today
    than it was yesterday?
        Ms. Brown. Absolutely. We are in a recovery period from the
    pandemic, and folks that have experienced poverty and have been
    through the pandemic need a longer on-ramp to reach self-
    sufficiency and stability.
        Mr. Sorensen. Thank you for that. Mr. Hodel, thank you for
    your testimony, and for your commitment to our home State of
    Illinois, and we share the same Congressional district. Your
    testimony notes that your business model relies on donations
    for food, financial support, volunteer efforts. Are we meeting
    the need of our kids, of our seniors, disabled, and veterans in
    need?
        Mr. Hodel. Yes, I believe so, and the reason is we
    distribute our food without discrimination, and we are very
    inclusive, and very broad with our agencies. So, we are in the
    wholesale space. We are not providing food to the food
    recipient. That is why we work with our agencies. In Illinois
    we have 550 agencies that are distributing food. I think that
    is key.
        As you talk about food access, those soup kitchens, those
    churches, those local pantries in every town, they know their
    community best. And so, what we do at Midwest Food Bank is we
    make it very easy for them to come and receive food from us at
    no cost, and then they go back and serve their communities. And
    so, I believe they know their community the best, and they are
    well positioned to serve and reach those outlying areas, as
    well as--you mentioned the students, as well as the seniors and
    veterans.
        Mr. Sorensen. What do I say to the single mother in East
    Moline, Illinois that works 25 to 30 hours of her day just to
    be able to afford the childcare, and then she can't afford to
    go to the Jewel--the grocery store at the end of the day--or at
    the end of the week to be able to feed her kids?
        Mr. Hodel. Yes, so for--I mean, she has a lot on her plate.
    Like, I have done a poverty simulation, and she is getting kids
    to childcare, she is trying to get to her job, she is trying to
    get to different health appointments, and a lot of time she is
    maybe using public transportation. I think your message to her
    would be reach out in your community. Look for support. The
    government has some programs that will help you, such as SNAP,
    but it is an and. It is not an or.
        So, to that single mother, you have SNAP, and you have food
    pantries, and you have local organizations that want to help
    support the community. I would encourage her to reach out and
    look for support in her community.
        Mr. Sorensen. I will ask the same question that I asked of
    Ms. Brown. Do you feel that the need is greater today than it
    was before? Do you agree with her on that?
        Mr. Hodel. Yes. What we are seeing is the food insecurity
    need is greater. You have reduced subsidies from the
    government, and you have inflation. And it is really
    inflationary driven, the--what dollars it takes now to fill a
    gas a tank, or to pay your rent. It--we are definitely seeing
    kind of an increase.
        At the same time, our goal is to serve them for a season,
    so we have definitely tried to increase our resources to be
    able to serve this increased kind of spike, or inflection. But
    our hope is that, through policies, and just through general
    economics, that it will cycle out.
        Mr. Sorensen. I agree with you, the need is increasing
    today, which makes me question why anyone would want to make
    cuts. I yield back.
        Mr. Finstad. I now recognize the gentlewoman from Illinois,
    Ms. Miller, for 5 minutes.
        Mrs. Miller of Illinois. Thank you. Ms. Royal, I know you
    have already talked about the National Accuracy Clearinghouse,
    but can you speak on some of the differences, and how the
    Clearinghouse was supposed to be implemented, and what the USDA
    has done instead?
        Ms. Royal. Thank you. The 2018 Farm Bill mandated the NAC--
    the National Accuracy Clearinghouse to be utilized by all
    states by December 31, 2021. In late 2021, as I said before,
    that rug was ripped out from under us. So, there was a
    determination made that personal identifiable information was
    not being securely maintained in the current working NAC
    project, and so a project--a new NAC was offered to be created
    using GSA-18F to create this--the new NAC.
        Several problems along with that, one being they didn't
    even talk to the states that were currently using the original
    NAC pilot, to use their best practices, the lessons that they
    had learned while the pilot was being active.
        Mrs. Miller of Illinois. Yes.
        Ms. Royal. The other thing, too, is the new rollout is
    2027. We have delayed it for a substantial amount of time. So
    now we don't have anything to use until 2027.
        Mrs. Miller of Illinois. So, since a clearinghouse has yet
    to be implemented, then what do--how do states know if an
    individual or a household is receiving multiple benefits in
    multiple states?
        Ms. Royal. We don't know. We don't have a database to make
    that connection.
        Mrs. Miller of Illinois. Do you believe this process is
    effective for preventing duplication of SNAP benefits from
    multiple states?
        Ms. Royal. Yes, and there have been many reports indicating
    that it has been very successful.
        Mrs. Miller of Illinois. Well, thank you. I hope we get
    this implemented ASAP, and I yield the remainder of my time to
    Congressman DesJarlais.
        Mr. DesJarlais. I thank the gentlelady. I ask the Chairman
    to enter into the record a document from USDA Food and
    Nutrition Services on SNAP policy for non-citizen eligibility.
    And what it will do is clarify some of the questioning from
    myself and Representative LaMalfa to Dr. Rachidi and Ms. Royal.
    We had asked about eligibility for non-citizens under 18 and
    asylees under Section 8208 of the Immigration and Nationality
    Act. From USDA, it states, ``Non-citizens eligible with no
    waiting period,'' and I think you said there was a 5 year
    waiting period.
        There are several in this category, but the two we focused
    on were qualified alien children under 18 years old, and
    asylees under Section 208 of the Immigration and Nationality
    Act. So, I would ask unanimous consent to introduce this into
    the record.\9\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ Editor's note: the website snapshot of the USDA FNS page
    entitled, SNAP Policy on Non-Citizen Eligibility, is located on p. 196.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Mr. Finstad. So moved.
        Mr. DesJarlais. And so, I am not doing this to be
    argumentative, but we are really trying to understand, with the
    large number of immigrants that are coming into this country,
    as we prepare to write the farm bill that already has 42
    million participants, we could literally be looking at several
    million new SNAP recipients, and we need to be prepared for
    that. So that is why we bring up this question, and then--just
    looking for clarification. And would either of you like to
    comment?
        Dr. Rachidi. No. Just I think what--my statement was that
    that 5 year time limit did not apply to them.
        Mr. DesJarlais. Well, I am sorry. I thought you said that
    there was a 5 year waiting period.
        Dr. Rachidi. Yes. No, sorry. Sorry if that was
    misunderstood.
        Mr. DesJarlais. I did misunderstand. Anyone else? Okay. I
    yield back the remainder of my time.
        Mr. Finstad. All right. I now recognize the gentleman from
    New Mexico, Mr. Vasquez, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Vasquez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate our
    witnesses being here to discuss the nutrition title, and the
    critical importance of SNAP. In today's hearing, I have heard
    SNAP being talked about from different perspectives. We have
    heard the words fraud, criminal activity, waste, identity
    theft, prosecution. We have also heard compassion, our American
    duty, health and opportunity, strengthening the middle class,
    and our Christian duty, and our Christian values. Think that
    says a lot about the value, and the different approaches that
    we, as legislators, take to this very important program that,
    in many cases, is the way to improve the lives of Americans.
        Now, SNAP is not just a program that protects families from
    hunger. In my district, I know that it is one of the most
    important stepping stones to help lift families out of poverty.
    This program helps people get ahead by helping to cover
    critical food costs so that they can focus on the things that
    many of my colleagues have talked about today, like vocational
    training, finding a job, education, and eventually reaching the
    middle class. I know one thing for sure, hungry people can't
    work. Hungry kids can't learn. Hungry families can't raise
    their children. And a hungry nation cannot prosper.
        In New Mexico I served on the board of Casa De Peregrinos,
    an emergency food bank in the City of Las Cruces, and I saw
    firsthand the many reasons why kids and families need food
    assistance. Losing a job, getting sick, divorce, and family
    separation, situations that many Americans are going through
    today. And I specifically chose to serve on the Agriculture
    Committee to defend SNAP because it is that vital lifeline for
    my constituents.
        Now, last week myself, and many others who voted for the
    debt limit bill, made it clear that we wouldn't accept changes
    to this critical program, and we were proud to have this be a
    bipartisan vote to expand SNAP benefits to veterans and to the
    unhoused. But some of my colleagues are also aiming to cut the
    program, and making a conscious decision that would directly
    hurt the poor and working families, and I don't think we should
    let that happen.
        Mr. Hodel, as the CEO of a large food bank, what kind of
    anti-poverty impact have you seen emergency food assistance
    have on individuals who are served by both yourself and the
    clients that you serve?
        Mr. Hodel. Yes, thank you very much for the question. The
    anti-poverty impact--I guess I would just go back to what we
    hear from our agencies, when we visit our agencies, when we are
    there for a loadout with their food recipients. We hear
    stories, and we hear testimonies of individuals that went
    through a hard patch in life, and they were blessed by
    receiving food from their local soup kitchen, or their food
    pantry. And they are super kind, to be able to translate that
    back, and also thank Midwest Food Bank for providing that food
    during that season.
        And so, we get examples of individuals that are in New York
    City, and they receive food after a difficult breakup, and they
    are raising two children, and it is that food that has kind of
    gotten them through a season to then get their education and
    get jobs. And so, sometimes we take our groups out, and we are
    able to bring those food recipients from the past in to share
    their story to the people that we are trying to encourage to
    support the work that Midwest Food Bank is doing. So, I would
    say it is through kind of testimony and feedback that we get
    through our agencies.
        Mr. Vasquez. Thank you, Mr. Hodel, I appreciate that, and I
    have heard many of those stories personally, serving in an
    emergency food bank in the past, and how important these
    oftentimes short-term solutions for families that are down on
    their luck, how important having that food in their household
    is for their kids, and also for their mental well-being.
        In New Mexico, 12 percent of households are already food-
    insecure, more than the national average. And Casa Del
    Peregrinos, the CEO, who I just talked to recently, told me
    that they are continuing to see an influx of new clients at the
    rural pantries that have all echoed the problems my rural
    constituents are facing, the cost of inflation, the cost of
    gas, the cost of groceries that are much too high, and this
    disproportionately impact people in underserved rural areas
    harder than cities.
        Now, one of the reasons that I think we are seeing an
    increase in recipients of SNAP and other benefits is because of
    the growing wealth inequality in this country. The less money
    that people have in their pockets, although they may be
    employed, although they may be working those minimum wage jobs
    that we want Americans to take, it still doesn't stretch far
    enough to pay utilities, to pay insurance, God forbid somebody
    gets sick.
        And so, I think some of the solutions behind why folks need
    food assistance, and need to enroll in a program like SNAP, has
    to do with the power of reducing wealth inequality in this
    country, which is a discussion we can, and will, continue to
    have, I am sure, in other committees, and in Congress. I yield
    back.
        Mr. Alford [presiding.] The gentleman's time has expired.
        The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr.
    Jackson.
        Mr. Jackson of Texas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to
    the witnesses for coming today. I appreciate you being here.
    These nutrition programs are meant to be a hand up for the
    neediest Americans, yet time and time again we see cases of
    criminal organizations skimming and then trafficking SNAP
    benefits from the true individuals that these programs are
    intended to help. Just last week three people in Michigan were
    arrested for stealing more than $4 million from people more
    than 2,000 miles away, in California. Mr. Chairman, could I
    please submit for the record the article from the Washington
    Examiner entitled, Michigan Catches $4 Million of Food Stamp
    Fraud; Mum on the Fraud Scope?
        [The article referred to is located on p. 137.]
        Mr. Alford. Without objection.
        Mr. Jackson of Texas. Thank you. Ms. Royal, in your
    testimony you mentioned how SNAP benefits are a target for
    identity thieves due to siloing and restriction on recipient
    data sharing. Could you please share with us how we could
    address these data sharing deficiencies to help combat these
    criminal organizations?
        Ms. Royal. Sure. We just need a readjustment of the
    regulation, or a reevaluation of the regulation. SNAP is one of
    the few Federal programs left that has the limitations and
    restrictions in it to share information, so a reevaluation of
    that, reconsidering the opportunities that states would have to
    provide that critical information to law enforcement and other
    agencies.
        Mr. Jackson of Texas. Thank you. Recently USDA released a
    request for applications for their Supplemental Nutrition
    Assistance Program Fraud Frame Implementation Grant Program.
    This program is expected to award nine different applicants
    with up to $750,000 to proactively detect fraud beginning in--
    at the application process and continuing throughout the
    recipient's time in SNAP. Projects eligible for this grant
    include efforts to detect potential fraud at the time of
    application.
        Ms. Royal, in your testimony you mention that no date of
    birth, no Social Security Number, identification, or driver's
    license is needed to access the system. Without these
    identification requirements, I am not sure how any of these
    grant award winners will be able to detect potential fraud at
    the time of application. Ms. Royal, could you explain how
    requiring a Social Security Number on SNAP applications would
    help to limit fraud and abuse, while not imposing an additional
    condition of eligibility?
        Ms. Royal. We use the Social Security in many different
    mandated ways. If somebody is disqualified in the program,
    states are required to enter that information into a national
    database, and we do that with name, date of birth, and Social
    Security Number. And that is important. When somebody is
    disqualified, depending on whether it is the first, second, or
    third offense, or specific types of trafficking, depends on
    what the penalty is. And so, for instance, if somebody is
    disqualified in Missouri, they come later, commit an
    intentional program violation in Wyoming, it would be important
    for me to have that information to make sure that I request the
    specific--or the accurate penalty. So, we use it for eDRS.
        We use it for death match certification. Again, the Social
    Security Number is such a critical element to the different
    types. Asset verification. I mean, there is certainly a long
    list, as was provided in our written testimony.
        Mr. Jackson of Texas. Thank you, ma'am. That helps a lot.
    Dr. Stover, change of subject just a little bit. In your
    testimony you state that the new Texas A&M Institute for
    Advancing Health Through Agriculture in the world's--is the
    first research institute to bring together precision nutrition
    and responsive agriculture research. I know you mentioned this
    also in your opening statement a little bit. This links food
    production to human consumption, thereby improving public
    health, and lowering healthcare cost. This is just the latest
    example of some of the impressive work being done at Texas A&M,
    and at the Texas A&M University system.
        Dr. Stover, I know you mentioned this briefly, but could
    you please expand on how the work you are doing at IHA could be
    used to develop a more realistic and usable dietary guideline?
        Dr. Stover. Certainly. We have established, in Fort Worth,
    the world's first agriculture food and nutrition evidence
    center. In the medical field, there is no controversy whether
    aspirin is good for you or bad for you. There are accepted
    methodologies to look at the totality of the data, to combine
    that data, and then to say what the answer is, whether it is,
    where there is a question about a policy, a practice, a
    guideline, and to say how strong the data is, how confident you
    can be in the science to make a decision that you know will be
    effective. Policy, or program, what have you.
        We do not have that in food, agriculture, and nutrition, so
    we have partnered with international consortia, the World
    Health Organization, FAO to begin to get set standards of
    evidence and methodological rigor into how we combine data, how
    we analyze data, how we present that data to decisionmakers
    like yourself so that you have the ability to consider what the
    scientific evidence is, and how strong it is, so you can be
    more certain in the decisions you make.
        Mr. Jackson of Texas. Thank you, sir, I appreciate it. My
    time is up. I yield back. Thank you.
        Mr. Alford. Thank you. And we go from Jackson of Texas to
    Jackson of Illinois.
        Mr. Jackson of Illinois. Hey, hey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you, Ranking Member Scott. It was 59 years ago the
    Reverend Martin Luther King said that he had the audacity to
    believe that people everywhere can have three meals a day for
    their bodies, education and culture for their minds, and
    dignity, equality, and freedom for their spirits. Such a belief
    shouldn't be an audacious thought. Ensuring no American goes
    hungry should not be controversial. That is why I will not
    support any bill that further tries to reduce food assistance
    and benefits to low-income households.
        Cuts to SNAP harms our nation's most vulnerable, including
    children, families, older Americans, and those with
    disabilities. Just 59 years ago those powerful quotes were
    shared, and here we are, 59 years later, looking at 42 million
    Americans, including 15 million children, five million seniors,
    and a million two of veterans, that are needing this
    Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
        I am deeply concerned that, instead of addressing our
    nation's persistent food insecurity, some people would like to
    suggest we should police the purchase of SNAP recipients. And
    it was in that same season in 1968 when Reverend Martin Luther
    King had the same thought, and his last moral mission was to
    declare a war on poverty. And now it seems as if we are
    engaging in a war on the poor.
        Restriction schemes that stigmatize program participants
    who are equally as capable of picking what foods they want to
    eat as each and every one of us, and would result in massive
    administrative burdens for USDA and retailers, ultimately
    increasing program costs, and making SNAP incredibly difficult
    to operate. When we start policing these food programs
    unnecessarily, it will run up the administrative costs. Right
    now, SNAP is an incredible example of a partnership that
    operates within the free market, allowing recipients to
    purchase the foods that they determine will serve their
    families best.
        I would like to direct my comment, or if you will, my
    question. To Ms. Brown. Ms. Brown, in light of--if there were
    increased restrictions placed on the policing of this food, how
    will that affect the retailers and families?
        Ms. Brown. Thank you for the question. Retailers would need
    to completely overhaul their system. They are not equipped
    right now to separate out different types of food to meet any
    type of restrictions, so it would be a massive load for our
    retailers to manage. I also want to point out, as we think
    about restrictions on food for SNAP participants, USDA has a
    program, SNAP-Education, that provides education, focuses on
    families with a limited budget, and focuses on physical
    activity. This program exactly meets the needs of folks worried
    about the health choices that SNAP recipients are making.
        Mr. Jackson of Illinois. Let me ask you, if there were more
    benefits, if we raised the eligibility and increased the
    benefit lowered the eligibility and raised the benefit, how
    would that improve health in our nation?
        Ms. Brown. So anytime, so, again, supplemental. The program
    is Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, so $110 in
    benefits are received per person per month. That is not enough
    to meet anybody's food needs. And so, by raising the SNAP
    benefit, it will decrease health costs. All of our studies in
    our state, as we have looked at the costs on health, and the
    ongoing impacts of poverty on all of our systems, indicate that
    more benefits will decrease health costs.
        Mr. Jackson of Illinois. My last question, these numbers
    move around. People are saying food insecurity. I take it that
    means hunger?
        Ms. Brown. That is true.
        Mr. Jackson of Illinois. Okay. Hunger. I would prefer to
    use that term.
        Ms. Brown. That is right.
        Mr. Jackson of Illinois. And then you are talking about
    $110 a month in benefits. We have heard of $2 per meal per
    participant, $6 a day. Can you explain the discrepancy?
        Ms. Brown. So, it would depend per state. So the $110 per
    month is specific for my state, and so it really depends on the
    variety of folks that you have that are participating in the
    program. So, you may see some variance in the dollar amounts,
    but bottom line is it is not enough to--in any way, the per
    month or the per day isn't enough to feed people.
        Mr. Jackson of Illinois. So, it can go from $3 per day in
    your state to as high as $6 a day for a participant in another
    state, correct?
        Ms. Brown. It could, correct.
        Mr. Jackson of Illinois. Thank you very much. I thank each
    of the panelists for your participation, and willingness to
    come forward. I yield back my time, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Alford. Thank you, Mr. Jackson. The chair now
    recognizes himself for 5 minutes.
        The relationship between the farm bill titles is symbiotic.
    It all works together to accomplish these goals that I think my
    fellow Committee Members and I can all agree on. Number one, to
    make sure our farmers and ranchers have reliable access to risk
    management programs to ensure that they can feed, fuel, and
    clothe the world. Number two, to make sure our nation is fed.
    And number three, to make sure we are good stewards of God's
    creation.
        These goals are all dependent on each other. Without our
    hardworking farmers and ranchers we can't feed our nation, and
    SNAP recipients are part of the market. If we can't feed our
    nation, we cannot be productive citizens. We don't have the
    healthy workforce we need, and our economy and society will
    suffer. And if we are not good stewards of God's creation
    through conservation and good farming and ranching policies, we
    will not be able to efficiently grow the food needed to feed
    our nation and the world.
        Twelve percent of this year's farm bill will go to
    agricultural production programs. Five percent will go to
    conservation programs; 81 percent this year will go to SNAP.
    Since 2015, this Committee has had 39 hearings on Supplemental
    Nutritional Programs. We care. We all care in this room. This
    should not be a Republican issue, this is should not be a
    Democratic issue. This is an American issue. And using harmful,
    and misleading, and inflammatory rhetoric is neither productive
    nor helpful in us all doing the right thing.
        There is no reason that an able-bodied American with no
    dependents should not be either looking for a job, working,
    volunteering, or being part of a job training or search
    program. There is no reason that farmers and ranchers should
    not have the risk management programs they need to succeed. But
    there is also no reason that a nation as great as ours should
    let citizens who are truly struggling to find their next meal
    and feed their family go hungry.
        I believe firmly that we must return nutrition to SNAP. We
    must make sure we limit the fraud and abuse in the system. We
    must ensure that we are not enabling able-bodied citizens and
    making them dependent on the government, but instead bolstering
    them for success and self-worth. SNAP should be a life vest,
    not a lifestyle. But most importantly, we must all tell the
    truth, and cut the harmful rhetoric designed to stoke fear,
    anger, and divisiveness in America.
        With that, I want to get to our questions. This one is for
    the panel. How long is the average recipient on SNAP? Does
    anyone know? Yes, ma'am?
        Ms. Brown. In our state, depending on the population, we
    see it range from 24 months to 72 months on average.
        Mr. Alford. How do we make sure that this does not become a
    lifestyle, Doctor? How do we make sure that SNAP does not
    become a lifestyle, and it is a life vest for Americans?
        Dr. Rachidi. Is that question to me?
        Mr. Alford. Yes.
        Dr. Rachidi. Well, I think having an employment component
    in SNAP, making employment a big part of SNAP, that is intended
    to be a temporary program, and employment really is the path
    out of poverty. I think sending that message is a crucial one.
        Mr. Alford. In your testimony you talk about the positive
    outcomes consistent and sustained employment has on families.
    What does that do for the psyche, having a job, even
    volunteering? What does that do for a recipient to help move
    them in the direction forward?
        Dr. Rachidi. Well, there is a very large literature on the
    nine financial benefits of work. It improves mental health,
    improves physical health, it builds social capital, it builds
    connection to the community, it has positive effects on
    children. So, yes, there is a very large literature that
    employment not only helps the financial security of a
    household, but it helps all sorts of other things as well.
        Mr. Alford. Mr. Hodel, we are spending more taxpayer
    dollars on nutrition support than ever before, yet the rate of
    food insecurity still hovers about ten percent. Where is
    innovation lacking, and where do opportunities lie for new ways
    to invest in these programs?
        Mr. Hodel. You--great question, thank you. I think, again,
    across the supply chain. In the food bank business we are in
    the supply chain business, and so I think innovation, all the
    way from working with retailers, food manufacturers,
    distributors, transportation, warehousing--and so, again, that
    is where we have tried to be creative in getting multiple
    sources, and then multiple channels to get the food moved to
    our different food banks. And then, also, on the----
        Mr. Alford. Thank you, sir. To be fair, my time has
    expired. I appreciate everyone on the panel. Next let us go to
    Congresswoman Pingree.
        Ms. Pingree. Sorry. Equipment. Thank you very much, Mr.
    Chairman, and thank you to the panel. I appreciate all the time
    you have put in today, and I feel very privileged to have had a
    chance to listen to so much of the testimony. I just want to
    emphasize the thing that always strikes me, having worked on
    this issue for many years. We are in the wealthiest country in
    the nation. We spend hours arguing whether or not people
    deserve food. That is why we are here again today. This was the
    argument that held up the debt limit. We are now talking about
    doing even more in the farm bill, and I am fully opposed to
    doing any more in this farm bill that would restrict people's
    access to healthy foods.
        I represent a very small rural state, one of the most rural
    states in the nation of only 1.3 million people, yet 23,000
    people--23,000 households are on SNAP in my district every
    month. Statewide we have 145,000 members, including more than
    46,000 children who need access from SNAP. It is critical,
    given the fact that Maine has the highest rate of childhood
    food insecurity in New England.
        We are talking about ways to cut SNAP, but it is becoming
    even more of a lifeline as families feel the impact of
    inflation and higher food costs, which disproportionately
    affect those people with lower incomes. The share of American
    adults who reported being in a worse financial position in 2022
    than during the previous year rose to 35 percent, with
    inflation being the financial burden cited by most respondents,
    according to the Federal Reserve.
        Now, again, we are talking about constraining this program.
    We are talking about trying to require more people to be
    working, and acting as if it is the constraint of the program.
    The fact is, there are not enough childcare slots for people.
    There isn't adequate housing. There isn't always adequate
    transportation in rural areas. Those are all constraints on
    working, and we treat it as if it is somehow the product of
    SNAP.
        I hear my constituents talk about these concerns every day,
    food, gas, housing, and how that contributes to their inability
    to buy food. And we also talk as if we have forgotten that the
    situation that was, I grant you, getting better, it has been
    getting worse since we had the pandemic. Supply chain
    shortages, the war with Russian and Ukraine, all things that
    have driven up food prices and made it that much more difficult
    to provide a healthy meal for $2 a meal, $6 a day, as we have
    been talking about.
        And I appreciate the testimony. Dr. Rachidi, you talked a
    lot about the constraints of SNAP for people's ability to get a
    job, but I disagree. I believe it is outside factors that makes
    it very difficult. It is also not people's bad choices,
    necessarily, on what they put in front of their food. I agree
    people need more healthy food, but it is very hard to provide
    food on $6 a day per person. A gallon of milk is nearly $5.
        We want to see people eating more fresh fruits, fresh
    vegetables, healthy proteins, which is why we should be talking
    more today about the GusNIP program, about produce
    prescriptions, about all things that we could do to get more
    healthy food on the table.
        The other thing that I find really distressing about today
    is we are talking about making more cuts, more restrictions.
    Well, when 170,000 Mainers lost SNAP emergency allotments in
    March, $17 million a month was drained from our state's
    economy, and taken away from hungry families. We have already
    made severe cuts. People are already reeling from what we have
    done, and now we want to talk about doing more?
        We also are going to talk about the impact that it has on
    our rural economies. During economic downturns, every $1 in new
    SNAP benefits generates $1.50 in economic activity. And we have
    heard people talking about how difficult it is, in a rural
    community, to get access to healthy food, and how important
    that return is to our community.
        I recently met with Good Shepherd, one of our state's
    largest food bank--our state's largest food bank. They are
    sending me photos of empty pantry shelves. USDA trucks carrying
    900 cases of milk to Good Shepherd pantry partners used to take
    48 hours to distribute. That is what they told me. Now the
    demand is so high that offloading cases takes under 3 hours.
    Preble Street Food Security Hub in south Portland is seeing 100
    percent increase in demand from March 2023 back to 2022. They
    are providing 800 boxes a month, compared to 400 in March of
    2022 and previous months.
        Clearly, I am going to use up all of my time ranting about
    this, but the fact is we are here today to talk about making
    more cuts, to making it more restrictive, to making it more
    difficult, and I can't say it enough, this is the wealthiest
    country in the world. We have plenty of policy to worry about.
    We have plenty to debate. But it should not be whether or not
    people can put food on the table. I yield back.
        Mr. Alford. Thank you. The gentlelady's time has expired.
    We now go to Mr. Nunn of Iowa.
        Mr. Nunn. Thank you, Chairman Alford, and the gentleman
    from Missouri. I am privileged to be here with so many
    Midwesterners. And, Mr. Hodel, I would like to begin with you,
    because you have really been feeding and caring for so many in
    the heartland, which we are incredibly grateful, in my home
    State of Iowa, to see what you do both in our urban areas, our
    suburban areas, but particularly across my 21 rural counties
    that are in desperate need of just the leadership that you are
    providing in this space.
        One of the things I want to highlight here is that I think
    we all agree, we very much want to be able to care for folks.
    This is one of the reasons the farm bill is so important. I
    want to focus in here on The Emergency Food Assistance Program,
    TEFAP. In FY 2022 $1.17 billion were allocated to this, and a
    majority of it goes to Feeding America, a government-backed
    organization. They do some really great work.
        But for your organization, you operate with a very small
    budget, and distribute more than $400 million in food without
    any of this help. I would like to hear some of the really
    incredible efficiencies you have led, and some of the
    innovation you talked about, and maybe we on the Federal side
    here need to replicate what the food bank is doing.
        Mr. Hodel. Well, thank you for the question, and the
    compliment. It is an honor to serve Iowa, as well as our other
    states. Again, I go back to, our founder started this 20 years
    ago with really the mission of--we need to serve our
    communities. And there have been some Bible references today,
    which I appreciate, but the Bible does call us and reminds us
    that the poor will always be with us.
        Mr. Nunn. That is right.
        Mr. Hodel. And so, one of the things is--I stepped into
    this job 6 years ago that I had to kind of think about and
    learn is, like, we are probably not going to eliminate this,
    but we need to figure out how do we best solve. And, again, it
    is for a season. The poor will always be with us, and I don't
    think there ever will be a--not a need for food banks, or not a
    need for programs.
        The innovation side of it, again, I go--I point back to our
    model. We have really focused on a business model of high
    efficiency. A period cost walks in on two feet every day, and
    so we are very cognizant about the leadership and the staff
    that we have at each location. Each one of our food banks I
    talked about runs about a $2 million operational budget. There
    are five staff members. And any--I love going and walking
    somebody through our warehouse, and I will give a tour of what
    we are doing, and we will run into 50, 60, 70 people, and I
    remind that group that we are with that five of these people
    that you just saw are staff members, the rest are volunteers.
        So part of that model is core volunteers. We are blessed
    with people that retire at 50, 55, 60, and they are still
    capable mind. And some choose to go to the gym to work out,
    other choose to come to Midwest Food Bank and to give of their
    time, and to lift boxes.
        Mr. Nunn. Also work out.
        Mr. Hodel. And so that core volunteer is a key model for
    us, and I think that helps our efficiency, kind of helps our
    leverage. And what we have been able to do is build a model
    that works, and then scale it as we have gone to different
    locations. So, we very much know that Illinois is Illinois, and
    Texas is Texas, and Arizona is Arizona.
        People ask us why we are called Midwest Food Bank. It is
    because our founder, again, 20 years ago, was trying to think
    big, and didn't call it McLean County, or didn't call it the
    Central Illinois Food Bank. He says, we will call it Midwest,
    because we surely won't outgrow that. And so, God had different
    plans for the organization, but I think our core volunteers,
    our volunteer model, as well as just--again, the culture of--
    we--we will say yes, and then we will figure it out.
        Mr. Nunn. Mr. Hodel--well, compliments, and I think--please
    continue to share those best practices with us not only across
    the country, for the volunteers who do it, but for the Federal
    agencies that could really use you, as a template on how to do
    this right.
        Very quickly, Dr. Rachidi, I want to talk about our nation
    experiencing an alarming increase in diet-related diseases
    among children. I have six kiddos, two of them are foster kids.
    They went through a long process of really needing that hand up
    that was just talked about, but also the ability to survive on
    this in a healthy way. How can we in Congress remain focused on
    enhancing the nutritional and educational aspects of healthier
    eating habits in the upcoming farm bill?
        Dr. Rachidi. I think that is a good question, and you are
    correct that the diet-related disease among children, diabetes,
    obesity, is actually a larger problem than hunger. Less than
    one percent of children have very-low-food insecurity; 20
    percent have obesity. So, I think that that should be the
    priority in the farm bill, is how do we get healthier food into
    the mouths of children?
        Federal Government does that through the National School
    Lunch Program, places very restrictive restrictions on what can
    be served in schools. I think they should take--maybe not quite
    to that extreme, but a similar approach with SNAP in ensuring
    that the program actually supports nutrition, and does not
    allow unhealthy products to be purchased through the program.
        Mr. Nunn. Dr. Rachidi, thank you so much. Thanks to the
    panel today, and I yield back my time.
        Mr. Alford. Thank you. The chair now recognizes Mr. Casar
    of Texas.
        Mr. Casar. Thank you. Today we are discussing SNAP,
    otherwise known as food stamps. I had some remarks planned, but
    now I feel like I have to change what I was going to say,
    because I just have to disagree with the gentleman chairing the
    meeting who said he wanted SNAP to be a life vest, not a
    lifestyle, implying that people could be living large on their
    food stamp benefits. To be clear, SNAP provides people $2 a
    meal, overwhelmingly to kids, working people, and seniors. You
    aren't living some kind of extravagant lifestyle on the few
    bucks you get to buy groceries.
        If my Republican colleagues want to talk about wasteful
    government welfare that lets people live large, then we should
    be talking about tax breaks for yachts. We should be talking
    about the multitrillion dollar Trump tax scam that
    overwhelmingly benefits the richest .1 percent of 1 percent,
    and the biggest corporations.
        We have been told that folks on my side of the aisle have
    been using potentially inflammatory rhetoric, but this is
    personal. We are talking about families that are working really
    hard, and just need a few extra bucks to eat. We are talking
    about families in my district in San Antonio that are working
    part time. They are also taking care of aging parents and their
    kids. Maybe they can't get to that 20 hours a week worth of
    work, and they could lose the little benefit that they get,
    that they pay for in their taxes.
        Speaking of things being inflammatory, I still think it is
    inexcusable that the entire nation's debt ceiling, a threat of
    default, part of those negotiations that we never should have
    been having over whether America should default or not, were
    about some 53 and 54 year olds having a harder time getting
    those $2 a meal. I personally believe that that is what is
    inflammatory.
        But we don't have to be in that divisive place. Instead, we
    should listen to our food banks, and to our social service
    providers that help every single day, who are asking us to make
    it easier for folks to get this benefit, be able to get a meal,
    and be able to get to work and provide for themselves and for
    their families.
        In my own district I am hearing from small farmers who are
    struggling in drought conditions to get by, but these Federal
    food assistance programs help them make sure they get their
    food to market, make sure they get their food to folks who need
    it the most, and help keep them afloat. I hear even from big
    retailers, like, H.E.B., one of this company's biggest private
    company--one of this country's biggest private companies,
    asking and pushing to protect these basic nutrition benefits
    that we know help farmers, help retailers, and help those
    families.
        And so, Ms. Brown, if you could talk just a little bit
    about what it is that we can do to reduce the governmental
    paperwork that folks have to get through when they truly do
    qualify for the program, how we can find savings on our end,
    but ultimately benefit those folks that the SNAP Program
    intended to benefit in the first place?
        Ms. Brown. Thank you for the question. I am a big fan of
    simplification, right? We have a lot of bureaucracy that we
    deal with, policies and procedures, and so any ways that we can
    simplify some of the requirements, make it easier for
    participants, make it easier for states to administer the
    program, I think overall is a win.
        I will give you an example of a time-limited SNAP recipient
    who didn't have access to reliable transportation, lived in a
    rural community, and wasn't able to get to the employment and
    training provider, and there weren't enough jobs in his
    community. And so, he was unable to meet the work requirement
    because of circumstances outside of his control, and will only
    receive 3 months of benefit. I don't think that is the intent
    of the program. We need to be able to feed people, and meet
    their nutritional requirements, while taking into consideration
    some of the barriers that they face.
        And so, one example that would be really beneficial is to
    exempt training income. We have a lot of folks that want to
    provide training, and build up people, and if they give them
    income as an incentive, that counts against them, and it
    reduces their SNAP benefit, or eliminates it altogether. So,
    there are a number of ways we can simplify the program, and
    make it easier for it all to work.
        Mr. Casar. Thank you so much. As we begin moving forward on
    the farm bill, I look forward to supporting a bill that feeds
    more families, that supports more of our farmers, and I won't
    support legislation that takes food away from those low-income
    households. Thank you.
        Ms. Brown. Thank you.
        Mr. Casar. I yield back.
        Mr. Alford. Thank you, sir. The chair now recognizes the
    Cheese King from Wisconsin, Mr. Derrick Van Orden.
        Mr. Van Orden. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I was
    raised in abject rural poverty by a single mother, and we were
    on food stamps. To answer the question that you are thinking
    about right now, they were not written on papyrus. I am not
    quite that old. I had subsidized lunches. I had government
    cheese. I was being shot at, literally, as a Navy SEAL in
    combat, and my wife and I used WIC to help feed our children.
    Mr. Molinaro from New York shares a similar story.
        So, I will not sit here and be lectured by people who have
    not walked the walk that I have. I will not. I volunteered to
    be on the SNAP Committee because I think these programs are
    incredibly important, and to say that Republicans are trying to
    snatch bread out of people's mouths is inflammatory, it is
    disingenuous, and it is not helpful. And I am going to call a
    truce after I do this.
        It took less than a second for me to find a job in Sparta,
    Wisconsin, an entry level position that paid $14.07 an hour.
    The $7.25 is ridiculous. So, I am going to ask my colleagues to
    stop it, and I will also, okay? Enough. Let us work for the
    American people and not try to legislate by sound bites.
    Inappropriate.
        Ma'am, Dr. Rachidi, I am not sure that I agree with you
    dictating what people should be eating. I just don't. I think
    it is inappropriate. We are trying to get whole food, or whole
    milk back into schools, and the reason it is not there is
    because it was removed by a previous Administration, so I am
    not a fan of the government dictating to people what they can
    and cannot eat.
        They say that we already provide microwavable foods to
    folks. Well, guess what? When I was growing up, we were too
    poor to have a microwave. I could take you to places in
    Baltimore right now, or within a mile and a half of this room,
    and they don't have a microwave because they can't afford it.
    Or they are latchkey kids, and they don't know how to prepare
    food. So, I don't want to mandate what people can and cannot
    eat. I think that is inappropriate. I do agree with the rest of
    the stuff you are saying, but--just so you know.
        Ms. Brown, are you aware that last September it was
    revealed that Feeding Our Future, a Minnesota-based nonprofit,
    allegedly exploited USDA child nutrition programs to defraud
    the American taxpayers of over $250 million intended to feed
    hungry children during COVID-19.
        Ms. Brown. I am aware. That was with the Department of
    Education, not the Department of Human----
        Mr. Van Orden. Yes. I understand. Similar program. So can
    you admit that fraud does exist in these programs?
        Ms. Brown. Well, absolutely.
        Mr. Van Orden. Okay.
        Ms. Brown. I think there are bad actors----
        Mr. Van Orden. Right on. Everywhere, right. So, we can't
    legislate by exception, correct?
        Ms. Brown. Say that again?
        Mr. Van Orden. We can't legislate by exception.
        Ms. Brown. Well, absolutely.
        Mr. Van Orden. All right. And G.T. Thompson says that he
    really wants these programs to be a hand up, not a handout. Do
    you agree with that?
        Ms. Brown. A hand up, not a handout?
        Mr. Van Orden. Yes.
        Ms. Brown. I believe that the SNAP benefit is incredibly
    beneficial to people.
        Mr. Van Orden. Yes. I am 100 percent with you. So, with
    that in mind, how many people have been raised out of poverty
    that have used your programs?
        Ms. Brown. I don't have any of the stats in front of me,
    but we can certainly send that to you afterward. I know that
    there are numerous studies that indicate childhood poverty has
    been reduced by the receipt of SNAP.
        Mr. Van Orden. Okay. Well, I would like to see those
    numbers, because I am a Member of Congress now because of these
    programs. I take this very, very seriously. Mr. Hodel, I would
    posit the reason that your programs are so incredibly
    successful is specifically because you do not receive any
    government funding. Do you concur?
        Mr. Hodel. That has been our business model, and it has
    been part of our success.
        Mr. Van Orden. Okay. So out of all the things we have
    talked about, all these incredibly important programs, we have
    one example here where your ROI is--blows it out of the water.
    So, you are involving the community in a Godly fashion to help
    our fellow citizens, our neighbors, in a way that is incredibly
    productive, and it has zero involvement with the Federal
    Government?
        Mr. Hodel. Yes sir, and I will just--we do have some
    involvement with the government.
        Mr. Van Orden. Is that correct?
        Mr. Hodel. When you say zero--for example, we received
    Farmers to Families Food Boxes. So I just want to acknowledge
    that that was a government program benefit to us.
        Mr. Van Orden. Okay. Right on.
        So you have minimal involvement with the Federal
    Government?
        Mr. Hodel. Very, very minimal.
        Mr. Van Orden. Okay. Well, I am very proud of you. And I do
    appreciate the Christian sentiment by my brothers and sisters
    here on the Committee. I too am a Christian, and, you are
    right, the poor will always be with us, but that doesn't mean
    we don't try helping them on a daily basis, so thank you very
    much for your work, everybody. With that, I yield back.
        Mr. Hodel. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Alford. Thank you. I now recognize the gentleman out of
    California, Mr. Carbajal, for 5 minutes of questions.
        Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Last week's debt
    ceiling vote saved our country from a catastrophic default. As
    a result of that negotiated deal, additional work requirements
    were placed on SNAP. I want to make it clear I am not inclined
    to support any farm bill that will take food away from low-
    income households. I will not support a farm bill that does
    that.
        Cuts to SNAP harm our nation's most vulnerable, including
    children, families, older Americans, and people with
    disabilities. As someone whose family depended on SNAP when I
    was young, it is disconcerting to hear the over-obsession by
    some who have--about the specifics about what low-income
    Americans buy and eat. Wanting to monitor the specific
    nutrition intake choice of families who are food-insecure is
    demeaning, demoralizing, and unfounded.
        Studies have shown that SNAP recipients purchase
    essentially the same foods at the same rates as other
    Americans. It is always those with the least who we are most
    obsessed with, taking their autonomy away, and wanting the most
    government intrusion into their lives. Nutrition and healthy
    eating are challenges that we are all struggling with.
    Regardless of class and income, we should all eat more
    nutritiously.
        But those with the least are also the least able to afford
    fresh produce, and other times intensive healthy foods that
    take a lot of energy and know-how to cook. I, for one, am a
    terrible cook. Again, we all share the goal to promote good
    nutrition and nutrition education.
        While we already do that, there is definitely room to do
    even more. So let us focus on ensuring we are accomplishing
    that goal, and work together to support expanding and improving
    GusNIP, which helps low-income families afford nutritious food,
    and SNAP-Education, which teaches families about nutrition, and
    how to cook nutritious foods they might be intimidated by
    because they have never bought them before.
        Ms. Brown, as someone involved in the administration of
    SNAP, can you speak to the incredible burden restricting SNAP
    purchases would have on states and recipients?
        Ms. Brown. Thank you for the question. Absolutely.
    Restricting any benefit, and any of the food choices that folks
    are able to make, would be incredibly burdensome not only for
    retailers, but also for recipients themselves. We have worked
    really hard over the years to reduce stigma in the program. The
    EBT card actually helps with that. We don't have the paper
    coupon, the stamps, that make it really visible. The EBT card
    looks exactly like a credit card, and so folks don't feel
    ashamed to utilize the benefit when they need it the most.
    Restricting foods would require separation on the grocery cart.
    It would very much signal to folks around them that this is a
    SNAP recipient and can only buy certain foods.
        Mr. Carbajal. Thank you. Studies that track the impact of
    SNAP on the physical health of recipients find that
    participation in the program is linked with positive improved
    nutritious outcomes, lower healthcare costs, and improved
    current and long-term health. However, prior to 2021 Thrifty
    Food Plan re-evaluation, the Urban Institute found that SNAP
    did not cover the cost of low-income meal in 96 percent of U.S.
    counties, with both urban and rural counties seeing the highest
    disparities, and USDA's Economic Research Service estimated
    that 49.7 percent of SNAP households were food-insecure in
    2019. Ms. Brown, do you think that the 2021 Thrifty Food Plan
    re-evaluation, and the resulting benefit increases, are
    furthering SNAP's positive impact on the health and well-being
    of its beneficiaries?
        Ms. Brown. I absolutely do. It was long overdue, and we are
    really excited to see some of those increased benefits show up
    with our participants. I also will note that inflation has
    greatly increased, and we need to balance benefits, and
    continue to work on the Thrifty Food Plan to keep up with the
    market prices.
        Mr. Carbajal. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Miller of Ohio [presiding.] Thank you. The chair now
    recognizes himself for 5 minutes of questions. Thank you for
    holding this important hearing as we seek to provide long-term
    economic and nutritional security to those challenged in our
    nation. It is my fundamental belief that everyone deserves the
    chance to shape a stronger future for themselves and their
    families. At the same time, we must provide access to the long-
    term tools to address food insecurity, and ultimately build a
    better life for those in need.
        First, I would like to call attention to the important work
    of the Ohio Association of Food Banks, including the Greater
    Cleveland Food Bank, and Feeding Medina County, through public
    partnerships with 3,600 hunger relief organizations across my
    state. Last year the Greater Cleveland Food Bank provided 10.8
    million pounds of food to families in need, including 94,000
    children. Similarly, the Feeding Medina County Food Bank, among
    other efforts, must--helped must--needs of underserved older
    citizens across the region.
        The agricultural community also plays a key role in
    addressing hunger, including in my state, through the
    Agricultural Clearance Program, providing wholesome food to
    families struggling with food insecurity, while enabling a
    meaningful outlet for farm goods. As a nation, we owe it to
    these individuals to identify policies aimed at helping low-
    income families achieve the type of opportunity that every
    American deserves.
        By providing greater access to workforce training,
    education, employment placement, and job retention services, we
    can empower individuals to build a foundation for a stable,
    productive life for themselves, and a road map to achieve a
    long-term goal of self-sufficiency. That is why I was proud to
    co-lead Training and Nutrition Stability Act, H.R. 3087, with
    Committee Members Alma Adams and Mark Molinaro, along with
    Adriano Espaillat, to ensure those in workforce training
    programs are able to maintain access to nutrition benefits
    while completing employment training programs to bolster
    economic security.
        Our bipartisan bill would ensure job seekers and programs
    authorized under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act,
    and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Employment and
    Training and Vocational Rehabilitation Programs, may leverage
    job-driven training programs' dollars and maintain them
    nutrition benefits, leading to long-term employment and
    economic stability.
        Toward this end, I would like to recognize the work of
    training facilities across the country, including the Center
    for Employment Opportunities, operating in the State of Ohio,
    as well as Pennsylvania, Georgia, and many other regions
    through bold innovation, helping underserved access employment
    opportunities through on-site workplace training, jobs
    placement retention, enabling pathways to long-term sustainable
    career opportunities.
        Participants, like Mr. Rice in my district, demonstrate
    that SNAP E&T can work. After gaining work-based learning on a
    transitional job through local partnerships with employers to
    provide work experience and training to challenge participants,
    he learned skills, was hired full time, and he is now building
    a foundation for the future.
        Dr. Rachidi, you note in your testimony SNAP must
    accomplish its core goal of supporting Americans in their path
    out of poverty. Can you please share your perspective on the
    critical nature of providing access to job training, including
    the importance of provisions within the Training and Nutrition
    Stability Act, to allow those in critical Federal workforce
    training programs to maintain food security and engage in
    employment training to assist individuals toward long-term
    security?
        Dr. Rachidi. Thank you for the question. I do think
    employment training is a crucial component of SNAP. In New York
    City, when I was there, we ran a very robust employment and
    training program. Part of the problem, though, is there are
    many employment training programs in SNAP that are not very
    robust and not very effective. So, I think that while there is
    a role, the Federal Government could do a better job in holding
    those programs accountable for achieving results that actually
    do help people get employment and put them on a path towards
    upward mobility.
        Mr. Miller of Ohio. Thank you. Mr. Hodel, in your testimony
    you stated alleviating hunger and malnutrition is a complex
    challenge requiring a multifaceted solution. How can Congress
    best enable and leverage public-private partnerships to meet
    the needs of underserved citizens, and what is the most
    effective role for the agricultural community to play in
    getting wholesome goods from the farm to those in need, and
    what barriers do you see in meeting these challenges ahead?
        Mr. Hodel. Yes, thank you. Great question. Again, I think
    about it as a mathematical equation. It is an and, right? We
    have individuals that are purchasing food, and they get food
    from the food banks, and they have SNAP. And I think what are
    the best programs to figure out the total equation?
        I would strongly endorse Farmers to Families Food Boxes.
    The exception, or the difference, I would say, is utilize the
    food bank to do the packaging. When you think about the
    Agriculture Committee, to be able to support farmers, and have
    a market, an additional channel for them to have to sell their
    goods, get that to a food bank that has a cooler and the
    freezer capacity. We can package it with our volunteers, and
    then get it out to our agencies. I think that would be a
    tremendous solution to add to the portfolio of solutions that
    you offer.
        Mr. Miller of Ohio. Thank you, sir, and I yield back. I now
    would like to recognize Mr. Costa out of California for 5
    minutes of questions.
        Mr. Costa. Thank you very much, and Members of the
    Committee, I know it has been a long hearing, but I think it
    has been an important one. I want to concur with the Ranking
    Member, Mr. Scott, and his opening comments. I think that we do
    have a consensus among Members here on our side about the--I
    don't know if it is the oath that physicians take, that--thou
    shall do no harm.
        Clearly--my district has the largest percentage of SNAP
    recipients in California, and Congressman Valadao has a similar
    high number. There are a lot of contrasts between significant
    wealth and significant poverty, and a lot of our folks are
    among the working poor. They are seasonal, working not only in
    the fields, some of the hardest working people you ever meet in
    your life, but also--and we--I think the highest minimum wage
    law in the country.
        But yet, with seasonal employment, family of four or five,
    oftentimes that is not enough nutrition to feed a family. And
    so I think that we need to be very careful when we make
    generalizations, in terms of what changes or reforms. And this
    is my fourth farm bill reauthorization, this issue comes up
    every reauthorization, in terms of how do we best provide food
    to the safety net. Because the farm bill is a safety net. It is
    a safety net for American agriculture, and it is a safety net
    for those who are socially and economically challenged in our
    country. and that is the way I look at the farm bill.
        So, under the category of thou shall do no harm, Ms. Royal,
    you talked about issues of experience in New York. How would
    you describe your view of the application of food stamps and--
    or SNAP benefits, Women, and Infants, and Children in
    California, and the distribution, and how we have done that,
    with the state's own efforts?
        Ms. Royal. As it applies to integrity? Could you repeat the
    question? I am not sure. I am not sure how----
        Mr. Costa. How would you rate the program in our
    application and distribution of SNAP in California?
        Ms. Royal. I can't answer the question.
        Mr. Costa. Okay. Well, that is fine. Ms. Brown, do you have
    any perspective on the California efforts?
        Ms. Brown. Unfortunately, my only familiarity with
    California, in terms of their recent efforts, are around their
    success with online benefit applications, since we modeled
    something similar. And so, in terms of their ability to access,
    and create access to benefits, that is more of what I am
    familiar with.
        Mr. Costa. And how would you describe that? As being
    successful?
        Ms. Brown. Very successful. I think using technology, with
    some strong support, and having the ability to increase our
    access points for folks that are disabled, rural communities
    unable to reach transportation, is incredibly beneficial.
        Mr. Costa. I mean, this is a subset of that point you just
    made, but I have learned that convenience stores--a lot of our
    poor communities, that convenience store, it is not really a
    grocery store, is where they can pick up groceries. I am told
    that you can use a SNAP card or check for food that is in the
    freezer as you take it out, but if you take items that are
    heated, that you can't use that. is that correct?
        Ms. Brown. That is correct.
        Mr. Costa. Don't you think that is something we should
    change? I mean, that makes no sense. You are in a convenience
    store, you are hungry, you are coming--lunch, or working, and
    you can't buy the chicken, or the other kinds of food that is
    heated there? I mean, if you are lucky, they even have a
    microwave, and you can buy it in the cold freezer, the burrito
    or something, and then you pay for it with your SNAP credit,
    and then you heat it in the microwave. But that is something we
    could change here in the farm bill, don't you think?
        Ms. Brown. That is something you can change. I will also
    say it impacts our homeless population, who often doesn't have
    opportunity to cook in a hotel room or in a shelter, and so
    greater opportunities are----
        Mr. Costa. Well, I would hope that is something we get
    bipartisan support. It doesn't seem to me that--having left--I
    mean, we are already agreeing that they can use the SNAP
    benefit in a convenience store, but we are saying if it is
    heated, you can't use it, and if it is not, you can. Makes no
    sense.
        My time has expired. There are going to be other things we
    need to work on. But I think that, as the Ranking Member said,
    we ought to find bipartisanship, as we have in the past, to
    produce a farm bill this year, and I will continue to work with
    everyone. Thank you.
        Mr. Miller of Ohio. Thank you. I now would like to
    recognize Mr. Molinaro out of New York for 5 minutes of
    questions.
        Mr. Molinaro. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all
    for spending the day with us. Obviously, this title is not only
    significant, many times it causes a bit of controversy and
    contention. I have been here for much of today's testimony. I
    want to frame my questions--although I do want to acknowledge,
    Ms. Brown, Minnesota's work to broaden access to SNAP, and
    those touchpoints that you referred to. Also, by the way, use
    of technology to reach to communities that are often untouched.
        And it is--I only offer that in this--as a way of framing
    what I hope will be a question at some point in my comments. I
    spent the last 12 years as a county executive in the State of
    New York. We are responsible for the delivery of food stamps,
    TANF, Medicaid services. That is--while the Federal Government
    says this is a state responsibility, which it is--and I would
    remind my colleagues, Republican and Democratic, that we
    empower states to administer these programs, and there is no
    prohibition from the Federal Government to use other state
    supports or Federal supports to create the connection necessary
    to provide access, for instance, to those dealing with housing
    insecurity.
        There is no prohibition a state can't provide laundry care.
    There is no prohibition a state can't provide wraparound mental
    health supports. There is no prohibition that the states can't
    engage in the kind of extra supports necessary as a supplement
    to SNAP. In fact, that is what we empower states to do. And
    states like Minnesota, and to some degree, I would acknowledge,
    New York have attempted to do this.
        However, I can tell you, over the 12 years I administered
    SNAP and social services in my county, I saw a culture change.
    Historically, Dr. Rachidi, as you know, and you testify,
    historically, states were encouraged by the Federal Government
    with a very firm mission statement. Use SNAP as a tool to help
    people get to their own degree of independence.
        I am going to pause here and say what my colleagues from
    New York have often heard me say, I grew up on food stamps. My
    mother was undiagnosed with depression. I thought every mom
    slept until eleven o'clock, and I thought every kid got a free
    lunch at school. But my mom worked hard--don't tell the unhired
    IRS agent, she probably worked off the books a bit--and we got
    back on our feet. I am grateful for the support structure. But
    when we moved--when we started to move into self-sufficiency,
    the agency was encouraged to help people find work. And it
    wasn't--it--we wouldn't--didn't leave people to simply navigate
    a massive labyrinth of bureaucracy.
        But quite frankly, what the Federal Government has done,
    and this very dialogue has devolved to is how much more money
    should we or should we not spend? Or let us demonize or not
    demonize a particular group or individuals. The truth of the
    matter is we have a robust system. We just don't effectively
    use it. And we haven't empowered states, and encouraged states,
    and incentivized states to truly engage in the kind of support
    necessary to help people find their way to their defined
    independence.
        My mother is independent now, diagnosed with depression,
    gets the services and support she deserves. My daughter
    receives Medicaid services, is an individual with disabilities.
    I understand the challenges. But allowing this debate to simply
    devolve into how much more or how much less we are going to
    spend is just foolhardy, because ultimately, the mission
    statement, to use the term I think Mr. Doar used some time
    ago--a week ago, the mission statement of agencies
    administering SNAP has changed from helping people to
    processing people, and states like New York have taken enormous
    amounts of Federal taxpayer money to simply support
    bureaucracy, and instead leave people to feel worthless as they
    are dehumanized in a system that doesn't care too much about
    them. You might, Ms. Brown, our staff might, I am certain. My
    social service agents did, but the system didn't.
        Dr. Rachidi, I just want to return to this concept of the
    mission statement. I was very grateful, authored the one
    sentence, I think it is a paragraph in the Fiscal
    Responsibility Act of 2023 (Pub. L. 118-5), that talks to
    changing, or re-establishing that commitment to finding work
    for people. My question is simply, can you speak to the value
    of pointing state agencies in that direction? And that likely
    will be my only question.
        Dr. Rachidi. Yes, I think there is tremendous value in it,
    because, as you mentioned, over the past at least 15, 20 years
    of my career, I have also seen the shift away from employment.
    And part of that is because states are very good at processing
    checks, but they are less good at engaging participants, and
    helping them find a path into employment.
        So, I think by the Federal Government making it a clear
    purpose of SNAP to help people find employment, I think it not
    only sends a message, but it also allows the Federal Government
    to hold states accountable for achieving that goal.
        Mr. Molinaro. I am--I have 10 seconds for one last
    question. What state spends more than New York on social
    service, Medicaid, and SNAP? Which state is that?
        Dr. Rachidi. Maybe California, but I don't think there are
    many. I think it is probably New York.
        Mr. Molinaro. It is New York. Spends the most on Medicaid,
    TANF, and SNAP combined, and yet we still trap people in a
    bureaucracy that is dehumanizing.
        Mr. Miller of Ohio. Thank you. I would now like to
    recognize Ms. Crockett out of Texas for 5 minutes of questions.
        Ms. Crockett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all
    the witnesses today for your time. Let me be clear, my
    colleagues and I stand united against efforts to take food away
    from veterans, children, families, or any vulnerable American
    in the farm bill, or in any other legislation. Any cuts to
    these lifesaving benefits would disproportionately affect the
    folks who make up the majority of my district, which is Black
    and Latino Americans. Any cuts would be borne most severely by
    these same communities, which are significantly more likely to
    go hungry due to years of systemic disinvestment.
        In 2021 Black seniors were nearly four times as likely, and
    Latino seniors were three times as likely, to experience food
    insecurity. That is why SNAP is so important to the 100,000
    seniors in my district, which is over 40 percent African
    American, and over \1/3\ Latino.
        Statewide, SNAP is critical to more than 3.2 million Texans
    who depend on it to put food on their tables each month. And
    let me pause here. I haven't been here for the entire hearing,
    but we do know we are talking about $6 a day. I just want to
    make sure that those at home recognize that we are not talking
    about a lot of money. I know that there was a lot of talk about
    how much money.
        And as we recently had our conversations as it relates to
    the debt ceiling, there was an increase in defense, and so we
    decided that we were going to cut $6 a day. I don't know how
    you balance any budget whatsoever off of that, but I did need
    to interject that we felt like that was really where all the
    fat was, with trying to feed hungry people in this country to
    the tune of $6 a day, and I can't buy a sandwich for $6, but
    nevertheless--this includes close to 400,000 elderly adults,
    and over 1.8 million children.
        In my district, over 45,000 households used SNAP in 2021.
    That is 16 percent of the households in my district. But what
    is most concerning is that only 36 percent of SNAP eligible
    seniors actually participate in the program, far below the
    national average of about 50 percent. So instead of talking
    about kicking people off the program, we should be focused on
    improving SNAP accessibility.
        In my home State of Texas, seniors are losing access to, or
    sometimes never even receiving, these crucial benefits due to
    difficulties they face in accessing the internet, navigating
    complicated applications, and dealing with onerous
    recertifications, even though their income hasn't changed. But
    we aren't doing anything about that. Instead of pursuing made-
    up problems with policies we know don't work, like time
    limiting benefits, we should be working on how to modernize
    SNAP to solve the problems of our constituents that they are
    actually facing. In fact, I have another plug right here.
        I had an opportunity to visit with a number of the food
    banks in my district that have talked about how we have
    modernized in this country. I use Uber Eats all the time.
    People use DoorDash, they use all of these different things,
    and so there are--I know DoorDash was actually one of those
    companies who had agreed to deliver boxes of food to seniors,
    but, because of the bureaucracy and the paperwork, if they
    weren't there to physically sign for the food, then the
    DoorDash delivery could not leave the food for them, because
    they can't go about kind of just doing it on an app, like many
    of us in this country do. So, it is time for us to catch up
    with the times.
        Ms. Brown, I was incredibly interested to read your
    testimony about Minnesota's benefits application portal, which
    has improved application times from over an hour on the
    previous paper version to about 13 minutes on average. Can you
    tell us more about the process for developing and launching MN
    Benefits?
        Ms. Brown. Yes, I can. Thank you for the question. So, we
    partnered with Code for America, who was able to provide
    resources to us free of charge, and they worked with our IT
    systems to really look at what are the necessary questions we
    were asking, and how could we utilize technology to really
    streamline the process behind the scenes, and not on the backs
    of the individuals who are applying for the program.
        And so, with that, we have had incredible success. People
    are incredibly happy with the length of time that they can go
    through the application. And, furthermore, they can do it at
    all hours of the day. In the traditional model, if you are open
    from 8:00 to 5:00, if you work different hours, it was really
    difficult for people to get to the social service office, so--
    --
        Ms. Crockett. And speaking of working, just to be clear,
    currently SNAP does have work requirements, isn't that correct?
        Ms. Brown. That is correct.
        Ms. Crockett. Thank you so much.
        Mr. Miller of Ohio. Thank you. I would now like to
    recognize the gentleman out of New York, Mr. Langworthy, for 5
    minutes of questions.
        Mr. Langworthy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member
    Scott. Dr. Stover, as you know, farmers and ranchers have the
    opportunity to work alongside the retail community through
    programs such as GusNIP. These programs are a win for local
    businesses and farmers. In New York State alone more than
    100,000 families have utilized the program. Over 5.2 million
    pounds of produce have been sold, and the economic impact on
    farmers in our communities has totaled more than $8.3 million.
    Constituents receiving benefits in my district are able to
    increase the number of fruits and vegetables being consumed
    through these incentives at certain retailers. What role do you
    believe incentive programs play in supporting the health of
    SNAP participants?
        Dr. Stover. I believe both education and incentive programs
    are absolutely essential. The intersection of health--if you
    want food to promote health in the population, it is an
    intersection of the food environment, the food that is
    available, and then the ability of the consumer to make the
    healthful choice. And we need to work on both of those. And
    that is a very innovative program, and we have to make sure
    that we get the food environment right, and that we have agency
    within individuals, the ability, the knowledge to make the
    right choices.
        Mr. Langworthy. Dr. Rachidi, I would like to open this
    question up to you as well.
        Dr. Rachidi. I do think incentives play a role, but I do
    think we have to be clear about the evidence around GusNIP. It
    did marginally include vegetable purchases, but it was fairly
    small. So, if we are thinking about the problem of diet
    quality, an incentive program like GusNIP, while useful, is not
    really going to be a game changer.
        I will add there were some comments about restrictions. I
    agree. I don't necessarily like telling people what they should
    eat or what they should not eat. I just believe that a taxpayer
    funded program like SNAP, billions of dollars of Federal
    dollars, taxpayers should not be subsidizing poor diet and poor
    health. So, I think there is a role for incentives, and I think
    there is a role for restrictions.
        Mr. Langworthy. Thank you. Ms. Royal, no one has been
    immune to skimming, but it is particularly bothersome when a
    household in need falls victim to criminal activity. Now, while
    some Congressional action has been taken in the Consolidated
    Appropriations Act of 2023 (Pub. L. 117-328), it may have
    simply provided a roadmap for bad actors. Ms. Royal, from a
    national perspective, can you tell me more about skimming, and
    how we as policymakers can stop it?
        Ms. Royal. Skimming is an attack on benefits. It is a way
    to use technology to recover information, and then use that
    information to drain SNAP accounts. Waste prevented--a lot of
    the skimming instances also arise from recipients using the
    simple password, the 1234, the 111, again those sequential
    passwords. Making sure, putting in mandates that we can't use
    1234. And I realize that that comes with complications, but
    when we are talking about draining an EBT card versus
    complications in requirements on PIN numbers, it seems to be an
    easy trade.
        Mr. Langworthy. Very good. Thank you. Switching over to
    food waste, Mr. Hodel, across the U.S., almost 40 percent of
    our food is wasted. That is 130 billion meals, worth almost
    $408 billion. I, and a lot of my colleagues, are concerned
    about the costs of addressing hunger. Can you talk a little bit
    more about how food banks like yours work with grocery stores
    and other sources to capture food that might otherwise go to
    waste, and where can we work to do more of that?
        Mr. Hodel. Yes. So thank you for the question. Again, we
    have a procurement director, we have logistics folks that--they
    are very tied in. And we know when a grocery store especially,
    or a supermarket, or a distribution center has food that is in
    excess, they need to get it out of there. So that is one of our
    driving forces, is--we have a fleet of trucks, we have drivers,
    we have access to trucking companies across the country so that
    we can quickly remove that from their business. They are trying
    to run a business, and we are able to quickly capture, and
    rescue that, and bring it in to our facilities.
        We have invested heavily in our facilities with freezers
    and coolers so that we can bring that in. And then we have a
    variety of distribution models. So not all agencies are created
    equal. We have small to large, we have local versus more
    distant. So, again, we have different distribution models so
    that when we get something in, that we can quickly turn it out
    to those agencies, that they can get it to their food
    recipients.
        I think an incentive, or a promotion, is carbon credits,
    because we think about how much are we rescuing that is not
    going to a landfill. And then how do we reward and incentivize
    those companies, and give them credit for the reduction in
    carbon.
        Mr. Langworthy. Thank you very much for the testimony from
    all the witnesses, and, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        The Chairman [presiding.] I thank the gentleman. Before I
    recognize our next Member, I just want to ask unanimous consent
    to submit for the record an article, May 31 Reuters article
    \10\ on the number of job openings, including industries like
    healthcare, transportation, logistics, and utilities. Without
    objection, we will enter that into the record.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ Editor's note: the article entitled, US labor market remains
    resilient as job openings climb, layoffs drop, is located on p. 133.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Now I am pleased to recognize the gentlelady from Oregon,
    the mother of a recent high school graduate on Friday,
    congratulations to you and Amelia.
        Ms. Salinas. Thank you.
        The Chairman. I now recognize Ms. Salinas for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Salinas. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
    your kind words. I want to start by saying, I actually agree
    with my colleagues in the Majority. I think we need to
    encourage opportunity, and I think we need to do that with all
    of our government programs. Sadly, that is where it ends.
        So nearly 17 percent of households in my district depend on
    SNAP to put food on their tables, each month, and that is about
    one in six families in Oregon's Sixth District. But I am
    particularly concerned about a certain population, and that is
    those who attend community college, so our community college
    students.
        I want to again thank the Chairman Thompson and
    Congresswoman Lori Chavez-DeRemer, who both serve on this
    Committee. We were down in Albany, and out in the State of
    Oregon this past Friday, and we were at Linn-Benton Community
    College, were we heard that the average student is 27 years
    old, and about \1/3\ of all those are parents.
        And so, we are talking about non-traditional students, many
    with dependents, trying to piece together work, caring for
    kids, going to school, and yes, putting food on the table. And
    a recent study from Johns Hopkins found that food-insecure
    students were more than 40 percent less likely to graduate from
    college, and more than 60 percent less likely to earn a
    graduate or professional degree.
        Despite the importance of nutrition to student success, and
    what I would consider increased opportunity, recent surveys
    estimate that as many as 30 to 40 percent of college students
    are impacted by food insecurity. And, unfortunately, SNAP's
    strict eligibility rules for students enrolled at least half
    time make it difficult for many to get the help that they need.
    And supporting food assistance for college students is an
    investment in opportunity, and in human potential.
        And I have my own personal story around this. It was really
    difficult. My parents could not pay for college. I worked so
    many jobs. I think I worked 70 hours a week. Sometimes I was
    full time, sometimes I was part time, but they were able to
    help me put food on my table. And I know a lot of kids these
    days, and non-traditional students, just cannot. So, I believe
    strongly that we need to make it possible for the millions of
    students that want to follow in a similar path to mine who--we
    need to enable them to make those ends meet while pursuing that
    education.
        So, Ms. Brown, how accessible is SNAP to students enrolled
    half time or more, and what barriers do people who are already
    participating in SNAP face when they try to enroll in higher
    education to further their work prospects?
        Ms. Brown. Thank you for raising this important issue. One
    in five college students are parents. And, adding onto some of
    those stats that you shared, we believe that student policies
    need to be modernized. When the program policies were put in
    place, the traditional college student looked much different
    than what it looks like today.
        So, during the pandemic, the COVID provisions that were
    passed were incredibly helpful. We heard from college students
    all across the state how grateful they were for that. So, what
    that did is it loosened the student eligibility criteria, which
    allowed for work study placement to occur. And what we have in
    Minnesota is that some college students that are eligible for
    work study are unable to get a work study placement simply
    because there aren't enough.
        Ms. Salinas. Right.
        Ms. Brown. And so that is a particular barrier that is
    incredibly important to really solve. We also are interested in
    seeing a blanket exemption for all income-eligible students if
    they are enrolled in a 2 year community college or a technical
    college program, again, with the idea of boosting up and
    removing barriers for student populations.
        Ms. Salinas. Thank you. And then, also, just in my last
    minute, I would like to ask about the mechanism SNAP has in
    place to address the benefits cliff families might face if they
    are able to increase their earnings to the point where they are
    no longer eligible for SNAP. So, Ms. Brown, can you speak to
    how utilizing broad-based categorical eligibility, or BBCE,
    impacts SNAP recipients in your state, and then what kind of
    benefit cliff, if any, do they face when they become ineligible
    for SNAP?
        Ms. Brown. Yes. Thank you so much. So, the broad-based
    categorical eligibility does allow households to save for the
    future. That is the number one piece, and it really does soften
    that benefit cliff. So, we want people, in order to be
    successful, and not turn on and off the program, to really be
    stable when they leave the program. And so, if we can soften
    the benefit cliff, and utilize all the exceptions and the
    flexibilities states can employ, then we will have a much more
    stable population, and people more successful.
        Ms. Salinas. Thank you. And more opportunities ahead. I
    mean, it really does go to show that we do need some safety
    nets there, so thank you. Thank you again to you, Mr. Chairman,
    to coming to our great State of Oregon to hear the needs of our
    state, and I yield back.
        The Chairman. It was a pleasure. Thank you for the
    hospitality. Before I recognize the gentleman from Tennessee, I
    do want to make a unanimous consent request to submit for the
    record a May 23 Wall Street Journal opinion,\11\ where the
    author lays bare how public policy has made unemployment too
    attractive for some healthy adults. Without objection, so
    submitted. I am now pleased to recognize the gentleman from
    Tennessee, Mr. Rose, for 5 minutes.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \11\ Editor's note: the article entitled, Make Welfare Reform Part
    of the Debt-Ceiling Deal, is located on p. 140.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Mr. Rose. Thank you, Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member
    Scott, for holding the hearing, and thank you to our witnesses
    for your time today. I know you have lots of things you could
    be doing, and we appreciate you being here with us. I want to
    begin with Ms. Royal. As a member of the United Council on
    Welfare Fraud, do you believe that welfare fraud is a
    victimless crime?
        Ms. Royal. Absolutely not. The victims are the taxpayers,
    and the victim is the program itself.
        Mr. Rose. And thank you for that. You anticipated my
    follow-up question, so I will move on, then, and thanks for
    that clarity. Mr. Hodel, your testimony mentions weekly
    deliveries to eastern Kentucky, with future projects for
    Mississippi and Louisiana, and a mention of a pilot program to
    support the super rural communities. Knowing these are high
    poverty areas, how do you succeed in getting food to these
    communities in need?
        Mr. Hodel. It is teamwork. We are using data analytics to
    look at the high poverty countries--or counties, sorry, and
    districts, and then teaming with corporations that have a
    philanthropic element. Obviously more and more I would say
    companies are looking for their proof to be able to show their
    employees that they are giving back, and they are caring about
    communities across the country.
        Two different programs, but one is procuring food,
    packaging basically family food boxes. One is shelf stable, and
    one is perishable. And then utilizing logistics companies, and
    they truck the food from our location down to eastern
    Tennessee, and then utilizing a local agency to do the
    distribution.
        And actually, of the 944,000 households that we dropped
    off, or the agency dropped off and delivered, only seven missed
    the delivery. So we have had really good response to be able to
    take a family food box to a house. Many times they don't have a
    door, or don't have windows, and they are clearly in need. So
    that is teamwork, kind of across the supply chain, with
    corporations, and companies, and agencies.
        Mr. Rose. Thank you. And to serve these areas for a season,
    and not a lifetime, are there--and I think I just said that
    backwards, for a lifetime, and not just a season, are there
    opportunities for collaboration with employers, career and
    technical education providers, and other service providers to
    give these families the support that they need to move from
    poverty to true independence?
        Mr. Hodel. Absolutely. Yes, we talked about junior
    colleges, and the one thing I would add is we actually have a
    lot of food pantries in junior colleges. And they are able to
    put those food pantries in place because we don't charge for
    our food, so it is an opportunity for a college student to come
    get food. But I do think companies, employers--we will see
    where manufacturing companies, trucking companies, they will
    reach out to Midwest Food Bank, and they will have an activity.
    They will do a food packaging drive at their facility to drive
    awareness about Midwest Food Bank, but they also know, then,
    that it is a support system for the community. And there are
    probably some employees at those locations that, based on their
    situation, maybe have to use the food pantry at times.
        So, again, I think it is community collaboration, but
    primary, secondary, post-secondary education, and training, and
    connections with the local employers in the area I think is
    really, really key.
        Mr. Rose. Thank you. I completely agree, and would just
    stress the old adage of give a man a fish, you feed him for a
    day, teach a man to fish, you have fed him for a lifetime.
    And--came up through the FFA Program, and appreciated the
    important lessons there of teaching people how to feed
    themselves, and grow the food to feed themselves, so I embrace
    everything you just said.
        Mr. Hodel, one photo from a once a month distribution was
    used repeatedly throughout the pandemic to demonstrate need.
    While it suggested demand, it also suggested logistical
    failure. What has your experience been? Have you seen dramatic
    lines? If not, how have you supplied your demand with
    efficiency?
        Mr. Hodel. Yes. We actually saw the opposite. So during the
    pandemic--and I am familiar with the photo, but we actually
    more fine tuned our supply chain and our planning of our
    agencies to pick up, because we needed--we had to kind of space
    people out. And so we were, again, with integrity, trying to
    make sure we were respectful of their time, so we kind of
    dialed in our schedule to make it really clear that--we need
    you to come at this time to pick up your food, and we had it
    kind of pre-packaged and ready for our volunteers to load their
    vehicles.
        So, our experience was just, again, making sure that we
    dialed in our planning and our logistics to be respectful of
    our agency so they did not have to wait.
        Mr. Rose. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        The Chairman. Thank the gentleman. Before I recognize the
    young lady from Virginia for 5 minutes, I just would request
    unanimous consent to submit for the record a May 24 Wall Street
    Journal \12\ article that articulates how desperate states are
    to keep people idle through waivers. Without objection, I am
    now pleased to recognize the gentlelady from Virginia, Ms.
    Spanberger, for 5 minutes.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \12\ Editor' note: the article entitled, Fixing the Food-Stamp Work
    Requirement Loopholes, is located on p. 143.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Ms. Spanberger. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
    thank you to our witnesses for being with us. There have been a
    number of conversations and questions posed throughout this
    hearing, some directly related to the topic, and some not.
    There was a question posed of Ms. Brown about the time it takes
    for an asylum process to go through, an application. The answer
    to the question--though, Ms. Brown, given your specialty and
    expertise was probably misdirected at you--is 4.3 years. And
    so, individuals who may eventually become eligible for SNAP
    benefits, once they are approved, it is an average of 4.3
    years, with some taking more than a decade. And, Mr. Chairman,
    I ask unanimous consent to put this document into the record
    substantiating that.\13\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \13\ Editor' note: the TRAC Immigration report entitled, A Sober
    Assessment of the Growing U.S. Asylum Backlog, is located on p. 203.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Chairman. Without objection.
        Ms. Spanberger. Thank you. There were also questions
    related to work requirements, and in the question was a little
    bit of an implication, that, in fact, work requirements are not
    in place, and that they are not currently supported. Work
    requirements are in place, and so I submit for the record--or I
    ask unanimous consent to submit for the record the statute
    related to existing work requirements, which do indeed already
    exist for many SNAP requirements.\14\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \14\ Editor' note: the excerpt from 7 U.S.C.,  2015. Eligibility
    disqualifications, is located on p. 219.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Chairman. Without objection.
        Ms. Spanberger. Thank you. There was a question related to
    veterans, and how removing some of the requirements related to
    hurdles that might be in place for veterans to get SNAP
    benefits, whether that would hurt veterans, because they
    wouldn't be required to take education and training programs.
    So, Ms. Brown, directed at you, while those requirements are
    not in place, thanks to the Fiscal Responsibility Act, for
    veterans who choose to participate, that option is still on the
    table, is it not?
        Ms. Brown. That is correct.
        Ms. Spanberger. So, we are not disadvantaging veterans by
    removing a hurdle for them to have access to affordable food,
    is that correct?
        Ms. Brown. Correct.
        Ms. Spanberger. There are, though, substantial challenges
    with some of the state-run program for education and training,
    that that is another matter. Is that also correct?
        Ms. Brown. That is correct.
        Ms. Spanberger. Thank you. There was a comment about the
    fact that an individual on the Committee went out and just
    found a $14 paying job. I would just like to state for the
    record that the Federal minimum wage continues to be $7.25, and
    a tip wage worker, it is $2.13. If any of my colleagues want to
    join some of us in raising that to a $14 level, I welcome them
    to do so.
        Related to the Farmers to Families Food Box Program,
    notably I think there was--in the immediacy of the pandemic,
    this program showed some strength, though notably a $39 million
    contract went to an event planning company out of Texas. There
    is story after story of abuses of the program.
        And so, when we are moving forward trying to find programs,
    and ways to leverage Federal dollars to help people and help
    communities, my attention is drawn to my state, the
    Commonwealth of Virginia, where agriculture is our number one
    private industry, and what I see in my district is the fact
    that local farmers are able to participate in programs such as
    community food projects. The GusNIP Program is incredibly
    helpful in helping leverage SNAP dollars. And, in fact, the
    Regional Food Business Centers are something that I do hope
    this Committee will codify when we move forward with this farm
    bill, because they have been so incredibly helpful to the
    people that I serve.
        And, with that, I want to just speak to another population
    that continues to face food insecurity, and those are active-
    duty servicemembers. In the Commonwealth of Virginia, we have
    the second highest population of active-duty servicemembers,
    second to California, and in Virginia's Seventh District, I am
    proud to represent so many of them. My colleagues have spoken
    about veterans who also face food security challenges.
        A 2020 survey found that nearly \1/5\ of active-duty
    military families in Virginia say they can't reliably afford
    food. The survey also found that lower ranked servicemembers,
    those who considered suicide, and those who were experiencing
    loneliness were more likely to experience food insecurity.
    These stories, these experiences, are not rare or unique to
    Virginia.
        According to the U.S. Department of Defense, 24 percent of
    active-duty servicemembers experience food insecurity at some
    point over the course of 1 year. That is almost one in four,
    and even our colleagues here today have spoken of availing
    themselves of food security programs while they were active-
    duty servicemembers.
        During my career I spent many years working to keep our
    country safe from a wide variety of threats, and I can tell you
    hunger among our military families is a national security
    issue. It is unacceptable that military families struggle to
    put food on the table in the richest, most powerful country in
    the world. Those who defend our nation do not deserve to go
    hungry.
        And while the conversation today has included some
    programmatic improvements that we could make to our food
    security program, some improvements to education and training,
    to the administration of the program, encouraging access to
    healthy foods, simplifying programs, and, of course,
    eliminating fraud, I also want to join my colleagues in saying
    that I refuse to accept senseless changes to SNAP that would
    harm our nation's servicemembers, veterans, and any other
    vulnerable Americans by taking food away from them in the 2023
    Farm Bill or any other way. Thank you, I yield back.
        The Chairman. The gentlelady did that very nicely, getting
    it in under the wire. I didn't think you lived that far north
    to be able to speak that fast. That was really good. Before I
    recognize Mr. Johnson, want to ask unanimous consent to submit
    for the record a May 17, 2023 Wall Street Journal \15\ article
    regarding the sensible reforms in the Fiscal Responsibility
    Act. Without objection, so submitted. And now recognize the
    gentleman from South Dakota, Mr. Johnson, for 5 minutes.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \15\ Editor's note: the article entitled, The GOP Can Win on Work
    Requirements and Welfare, is located on p. 138.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Mr. Johnson. Dr. Rachidi, your testimony references the
    relative lower health outcomes for SNAP recipients, which I
    think is, of course, concerning to all of us. I assume that
    health is highly correlated to employment, and so then I wonder
    if SNAP recipients would have correlatingly lower work
    outcomes. Is my assumption right, and then, if so, what do we
    do about that to make sure that people are healthier, more
    productive, happier? We have talked about some programmatic
    improvements, but what are we missing?
        Dr. Rachidi. Yes, thank you for the question. This is
    actually one of my main concerns about SNAP, because SNAP
    obviously draws to the program just an unhealthier population,
    because that is likely why they can't work, which is why they
    are low-income, which is why they need SNAP. So, it does draw
    an unhealthy population somewhat by design.
        But the problem with SNAP is that once that unhealthy
    population comes to SNAP for help, SNAP actually contributes to
    poor health by reducing diet quality, and also disincentivizes
    work, which we know leads to further deterioration of health.
    So, in the reverse, really SNAP should be looking at those with
    poor health as an opportunity to improve their health and make
    them more employable, so that they can, in the end, escape
    poverty.
        Mr. Johnson. So, I do not have it in front of me, but there
    was a Federal Reserve report a number of years ago that I
    reviewed that indicated--that talked--that did time studies on
    work capable individuals who were not working. And you--not
    surprising that there was a big difference between the way that
    unemployed women spent their time versus unemployed men.
    Unemployed women are so often the custodial parent. They were
    spending huge chunks of their day on care for dependents. With
    the young work capable men, that was less the case.
        And the time study result, as I remember, was early on they
    were spending a fair amount of time trying to be work ready and
    look for work. If they didn't get a job relatively quickly, how
    they spent their time changed dramatically. And they began to
    spend more time on television, on a smartphone, on other
    entertainment devices, and that there was a corresponding
    precipitous drop in their mental health.
        Does that sound about right? Is that consistent with other
    research you have analyzed, and any other observations you
    would have about what sounds like, frankly, a serious problem
    for the behavioral health of Americans generally?
        Dr. Rachidi. It is, and it is exactly correct. So, Nick
    Eberstadt, who is a scholar at AEI, has done work on time use
    surveys, and documented that--especially among men, those were
    prime age and not working, they spend their time mostly in
    front of screens. And then we have the literature to suggest
    the longer people are out of the labor market, their health
    deteriorates even more, and even mental health issues.
        So, you can imagine a population that is becoming further
    depressed because they are not working, spending a lot of time
    on screens it is just contributing to the problem rather than
    trying to help them.
        Mr. Johnson. And I would--I think both sides of the dais--
    and by the way, I think we all know this Committee is generally
    far more common ground seeking than many of the food fight
    committees in Washington, and that is one of the reasons that I
    am so proud to serve here. I do think sometimes the rhetoric
    many of us can use about this issue can be a barrier.
        I do think everybody in here ultimately shares the same
    desire, which is how do we allow people to live happier, more
    productive, healthier lives. We may have tactical disagreements
    about the best way to do that, but I do observe that we all
    accept that, to get stronger in athletics, you can't just jog
    at a comfortable pace, that growth comes outside of one's
    comfort zone. And, of course, that is true for a high school
    cross-country runner, but it is also true for each of us, in
    our personal relationships, in our professional relationships.
        And I know that every human being I have met is more--is
    better positioned to grow outside of that comfort zone if there
    is some--if there is accountability. If there are--not just
    accountability, but some supports, right? And ultimately,
    looking forward, we do know that work requirements can play a
    role there. We know that job training programs can play role
    there. We know that job seeking supports, including childcare,
    plays a role as well.
        And so, I would just thank you for the research that you
    and your colleagues have done, because ultimately, we cannot
    afford to have the kind of precipitous decline in physical
    health and mental health that the research you are discussing
    describes. Thanks so much. I yield back.
        The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. Before I
    recognize--good friend from Florida, I would just unanimous
    consent to submit for the record Dr. Rachidi's May 2023 report,
    Perspective on Opportunity: Promoting Mobility Through SNAP:
    Toward Better Health and Employment Outcomes. Without
    objection, the article is submitted, and now pleased to
    recognize the gentleman from Florida, Congressman Soto, for 5
    minutes.
        [The report referred to is located on p. 168.]
        Mr. Soto. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for coming to
    Florida for the listening tour just a few weeks ago. It has
    been said often on this Committee, by both sides of the aisle,
    that we live in the most powerful, most prosperous nation in
    the history of the world, and that no American family should go
    hungry. We also have incredible farmers. The American farmer is
    the most productive in the world as well, which helps give us
    this blessed bounty.
        I want to go through some of the facts about SNAP. First,
    SNAP is effective. It serves over 42 million Americans. SNAP is
    also a critical program for our local agriculture. I have
    spoken to many ranchers, and growers, and farmers in my
    district who work with our state, and with the Federal
    Government to help provide the food for the SNAP program. SNAP
    has modest benefits. The average benefits are $2 per person per
    meal, $6 per day. As I have mentioned that to some of my
    constituents, a lot of folks have been shocked about that
    number. And, last, SNAP also helps our most vulnerable
    Americans: 80 percent of the program are children, the
    disabled, seniors. We also have a lot of veterans who are able
    to get SNAP benefits, as my colleague, Representative
    Spanberger, mentioned so well.
        I talked to some of our local nonprofits, like Osceola
    Council on Aging in my district about persons with disabilities
    in my district who are receiving SNAP, and they talked about a
    gentleman named Herman who is a constituent of mine in central
    Florida. He is a senior who lives alone with diabetes, suffers
    from heart problems, uses a walker. His food stamps have
    already been cut from $150 to $50. If there were further cuts,
    he will be in an increasingly worse situation. Right now, he
    tries to make things work by working with other charities, and
    churches, and the like, and we applaud the work they do, but
    the funding and the food there is not consistent.
        We know that a household containing an adult with
    disability is estimated to require 28 percent more income to
    maintain the same standard of living as a similar household.
    SNAP can serve as a vital lifeline for Americans in this
    situation. In Florida, more than 288,000 non-senior adults with
    disabilities participate in SNAP each month. Nationally, in
    2020, 22 percent of SNAP households, over four million
    households, included non-elderly adults and children with
    disabilities. That is why I feel strongly about these programs,
    and I hear it from my constituents every day.
        Ms. Brown, how can we improve SNAP benefits to ensure
    Americans living with disabilities like Herman can afford
    healthy, nutritious food? Because $50 doesn't seem like a lot
    of money each week. And are there ways we can adjust--excuse
    me, monthly, forgive me. And are there ways we can adjust
    things like SNAP work requirements and medical deductions to
    ensure low-income disabled individuals have better food
    assistance?
        Ms. Brown. Yes. Thank you for the question, and thank you
    for the example of the constituent. I think that is an
    important example, because it shows the conditions that your
    constituent has as a result of SNAP, but they are utilizing
    SNAP to help, despite all the of the conditions that they are
    dealing with. And I think there have been a few statements made
    that are really ignoring the conditions that folks have as they
    are entering into SNAP, and SNAP is not causing those
    conditions, so I want to make that point. I also just have to
    make another point that when we look at a point in time, a data
    point, that does not--that--it does not serve as well to make
    broad characterizations of a population.
        So, to your point about folks that we can improve access,
    and encourage disabled folks, absolutely. Increased review of
    the medical deductions will absolutely benefit that population,
    and encourage more to apply, and to receive benefits, and
    hopefully stabilize. We have to really be understanding of the
    myriad of conditions and problems that our folks have, and that
    is exactly why SNAP is here.
        Mr. Soto. Well, thank you so much, Ms. Brown. Constituents
    like Herman, a disabled senior, who already had his benefits
    cut from $150 to $50 a month--I can't imagine any family, let
    alone a constituent suffering from disabilities to be able to
    really live on that, so--think these are types of stories we
    have to keep in mind as we are looking at protecting SNAP here
    in the farm bill. And I yield back.
        The Chairman. Thank the gentleman. Before I recognize the
    Ranking Member here for closing comments, I just would like to
    submit for the record a May 30 Wall Street Journal \16\ article
    on restoring a culture of work and safety net programs. Without
    objection, consider the article submitted. And now pleased to
    recognize, for any closing comments that he would like to make,
    the gentleman from Georgia.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \16\ Editor's note: the article entitled, The GOP's Progress on
    Work and Welfare, is located on p. 144.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And I want to thank our panelists for a very engaging,
    informative, and heartfelt presentation. We are dealing here
    with fine points. What has been missed here is that--this issue
    of work, as if Democrats don't have work requirements. We do,
    up to 49 years of age. Under the bill that President Biden has
    just signed, the work requirements are 5 more years. So it is
    minor.
        But why do we feel--we have an opportunity here to really
    get to the heart of the matter. Let me just share with you why
    I oppose moving from the 49 years of age that we have the work
    requirements. You would hear from our Republican friends as if
    Democrats don't support work requirements. We do. But we have a
    reason for putting it at the age where it is least hurtful for
    the very people we are trying to help.
        Let me share with you these astounding figures so that I
    think you will agree that 49 years is sufficient, and once you
    get beyond that, you create an amazing amount of hurt to the
    very people that you are trying to help: 82 percent of SNAP
    households include a child, an elderly adult, a person with
    disability. That is in 82 percent of every household. And 42
    percent of all of the SNAP participants are children. It is the
    children in the households. It is the grandparents, it is the
    parents, that have to provide food from their qualifications
    for the food stamps.
        That age is so important, and that is why we Democrats feel
    strongly in holding this age at this pattern. We are not
    against people going out--able-bodied going to work. Work is
    not just there when you have this type of constituency in each
    household. Who is going to take care of those children, the
    disability, the people who are in these homes that SNAP is
    giving the attention to? That is what is at issue here. And I
    am hoping that our Republican friends will see the
    justification to don't add more difficulties onto our SNAP
    recipients than what we have now.
        And y'all's testimony proves this very point, that we are
    set, and with--the SNAP requirements of work where they are,
    are there for a purpose. It is not these additional 5 years we
    have to be concerned about. We are there to help these
    children. We are here to help the disabled. And when you throw
    in our veterans, who are living in food-insecure households at
    a rate of 7.4 percent greater than the general population, that
    is why we have the work requirements where they are.
        That is the only difference we have. And you have heard
    similar commentaries from each side. There is a compassion
    here. Now we all just hope, and we pray, that our Republican
    friends will want this to be a bipartisan bill. But there is no
    way that we Democrats can turn our backs on where we are right
    now. All we are asking for is to keep it where it is. And you
    all have testified as to why. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Well, I thank the gentleman. I want to thank
    our witnesses. This panel has been unmatched, in terms of your
    expertise, and your dedication to basically what we are talking
    about under the nutrition title, and I just greatly appreciate
    it. Thank you to our Members. We had tremendous participation
    and turnout. And thank you to our staff, all of our staff, for
    helping to make this hearing so successful.
        There are a couple truisms out there in this space. Farmers
    feed, and nutrition matters. And so that is why I am very proud
    to have Title IV, the nutrition title, in the farm bill. I
    think it is an essential part of the farm bill. And under the
    SNAP Program, the fact that the national average is $248 a
    month, the national average is a little over $8 a day.
        Now, that is the national average. There are some
    differences based on the states' administrations. I want to
    compare that over $8 a month for SNAP recipients to the fact
    that the national average for expenditure for non-SNAP on a
    daily basis is $12 a day. And that is why we call it
    Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program. It is not the full
    amount, supplemental, but it is--the differences is pretty
    close.
        Now, as we continue our work for the 2023 Farm Bill, I hope
    it will keep a principled approach. Those principles were in
    the title of this hearing, and, quite frankly, has been in any
    discussion that I have led, or have been a part of, not just in
    this hearing room, but, quite frankly, all across the country,
    and probably about 40 states over the past 2 years and 5
    months, as we have done a listening--farm listening session to
    take input on all 12 titles of the farm bill, including Title
    IV, the nutrition title. That is innovation and flexibility,
    food and financial security--or independence, food and
    financial independence, program integrity, and healthy eating.
    By focusing on principle, we can mute the politics that can be
    so divisive. I think we have an obligation to do that.
        As we look at SNAP, and I know that it can be very
    controversial, but it is important for people to understand
    that, in terms of--I don't use the word work requirements. I
    use the word job opportunities: almost \1/4\ of all SNAP
    recipients today are working. They are the working poor. They
    are working one and two jobs or more, minimum wage, no
    benefits, and they are not getting any further ahead, and they
    are struggling.
        And they qualify financially for SNAP, and they don't--I
    mean, they fulfill that 20 hours a week work requirements, but
    it is important people--to clarify that that requirement, as
    has been in law for a very long time, is 20 hours of work, or
    20 hours of volunteer time. Or, quite frankly, I think one of
    the best ways is engagement in SNAP employment and career and
    technical education. Helping people reach a new rung on the
    ladder of opportunity. So I look forward to our continued
    discussion on where areas for improvement exist.
        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 additional material and supplementary written
    responses from witnesses to any question posed by a Member.
    This hearing of the Committee on Agriculture is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 2:43 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
        [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
    Submitted Articles by Hon. Glenn Thompson, a Representative in Congress
                               from Pennsylvania
                                   Article 1
    [https://journals.lww.com/co-pediatrics/Fulltext/2023/02000/
    Supplemental_Nutri
    tion_Assistance_Program_as_a.8.aspx]
    Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program as a health intervention
    Current Opinion in Pediatrics

    Jerold Mande a and Grace Flaherty b
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \a\ Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.
        \b\ Bailit Health Purchasing, Needham, Massachusetts, USA.
        Correspondence to Jerold Mande, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public
    Health, 655 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
        Tel: +1 617 850 2578; e-mail: jmande@hsph.harvard.edu
        Curr. Opin. Pediatr. 2023, 35: 33-38, DOI:10.1097/
    MOP.0000000000001192.
        This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the
    Creative Commons Attribution--Non Commercial--No Derivatives License
    4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND), where it is permissible to download and share the
    work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any
    way or used commercially without permission from the journal.

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

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Purpose of review

        In 2020, obesity prevalence among U.S. children reached 19.7%,
     impacting about 14.7 million children and adolescents. Food insecurity
     among children is also a public health concern but has largely
     decreased or remained stable over the past decade, reaching 6.2% of
     U.S. households with children in 2021. Given food insecurity and
     obesity's interconnected nature and their negative consequences on
     children's health, it is of interest to assess the Supplemental
     Nutrition Assistance Program's (SNAP's) impact on childhood food
     security, dietary quality, disease risk, and health outcomes.

                                 Recent findings

        Evidence suggests that SNAP participants, including children,
     struggle to meet key dietary guidelines and perform poorly on key
     health indicators when compared with income-eligible and higher income
     non-participants. Children participating in SNAP were more likely to
     have elevated disease risk and consume more sugar-sweetened beverages
     (SSBs), more high-fat dairy, and more processed meats than income-
     eligible non-participants. However, research suggests that Federal food
     assistance programs with more stringent nutrition standards--the
     Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children
     (WIC) and the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and School Breakfast
     Program (SBP)--improve dietary quality, increase birth weight and
     gestation periods, and reduce childhood obesity, infant mortality and
     healthcare costs.

                                     Summary

        After reviewing the evidence on SNAP's impacts on food insecurity,
     dietary quality, and health as well as research on the health impacts
     of other more successful Federal food assistance programs, we provide
     three policy recommendations to strengthen SNAP's effectiveness as a
     health intervention for children and families.

                                    Keywords

        diet quality, food insecurity, health intervention, nutrition
     assistance, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Introduction
        Obesity and diet-related disease are a growing public health crisis
    for both adults and children, with significant disparities by race and
    ethnicity. Childhood food insecurity is also a public health concern
    and is closely tied to diet-related disease and overall child health.
    The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is the largest
    Federal food assistance program and is of interest for its potential to
    further alleviate food insecurity among children while also improving
    health outcomes.
    Burden Of Obesity, Diet-Related Disease, and Food Insecurity
        From 2017 to 2020, for children aged 2 to 19 years, the prevalence
    of obesity in the United States was 19.7% and impacted about 14.7
    million children and adolescents.[1D] Obesity
    prevalence was 26.2% among Hispanic children, 24.8% among non- Hispanic
    black children, 16.6% among non-Hispanic white children, and 9% among
    non-Hispanic Asian children.[2] Obesity increases a child's
    risk for adverse diet-related health conditions, including type 2
    diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and certain cancers.[3]
    Among adults, from 2017 to 2020, obesity prevalence was 41.9%, a record
    high.[3] Obesity prevalence was 49.9% among non-Hispanic
    black adults, 45.6% among Hispanic adults, 41.4% among non-Hispanic
    white adults and 16.1% among non-Hispanic Asian adults.[3]
    In 2017-2018, 93.2% of adults had less-than-optimal metabolic
    health.[4D] Diet-related chronic diseases are
    among the leading causes of death in the United States, and research
    during the coronavirus 19 (COVID-19) pandemic showed that diet-related
    chronic diseases were associated with higher risk of COVID-19 infection
    and \2/3\ of COVID-19 hospitalizations.[2, 5D]

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

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Key Points

         Childhood obesity and diet-related disease are growing
         public health concerns. Childhood food insecurity is also an
         important public health concern but has been decreasing over the
         past decade, thanks in large part to Federal policy efforts.

         Research suggests that the Supplemental Nutrition
         Assistance Program (SNAP) has positive impacts on child health by
         reducing food insecurity and providing economic benefits to
         families, but SNAP participants are still struggling more than
         income-eligible and higher income non-participants to meet key
         dietary guidelines.

         Research on other Federal food assistance programs suggests
         that making diet quality a SNAP core objective, applying more
         stringent nutrition standards to SNAP authorized retailers, and
         pairing incentives for purchasing fruits and vegetables with
         restrictions on unhealthy foods and beverages would improve
         participants dietary patterns and metabolic health.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Food insecurity and very-low-food insecurity among households with
    children decreased from 2020 to 2021. Food-insecure households, as
    defined by USDA, are those that had difficulty at some time during the
    year providing enough food for all members because of a lack of
    resources.[6] Very-low-food insecurity is a more severe
    range of food insecurity, wherein the food intake of some household-
    members was reduced, and normal eating patterns was disrupted at times
    during the year because of limited resources.[6] In 2021,
    6.2% of households with children were food-insecure (compared with 7.5%
    in 2020) and 0.7% had very-low-food security (compared with 0.8% in
    2020).[7D, 8D] Food insecurity is
    associated with a host of short-term and long-term health consequences
    for children, including infant mortality, fetal epigenetic changes,
    suboptimal development and function, increased hospitalizations and
    healthcare use, disrupted or under use of prescribed medications,
    poorer-management of chronic diseases and poor diet
    quality.[9-19]
    Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Background
        SNAP is a Federal program with the potential to impact childhood
    food insecurity, obesity, and diet-related disease simultaneously. SNAP
    provides food-purchasing assistance to low-income Americans. SNAP is
    the largest Federal food assistance program, serving 41.5 million
    people in fiscal year (FY) 2022 at an expenditure of $140
    billion.[20] The most recent data on SNAP household
    characteristics found that in FY 2019, 41% of participating SNAP
    households included children.[21] The United States
    Department of Agriculture (USDA) pays the full cost of SNAP benefits
    and shares half of the administration costs with states, which operate
    SNAP. To be eligible to receive SNAP benefits, an individual or
    household must have a gross income of less than 130% of the Federal
    poverty standard, net income less than 100% of the Federal poverty
    standard, and assets must fall below certain limits.[22]
    Households deemed eligible for SNAP benefits receive an electronic
    benefit card (EBT), which is loaded with benefits monthly. Households
    may use EBT cards at an authorized retailer, of which there are more
    than 247,000.[23] SNAP participants may use EBT benefits to
    purchase food and allowable beverages but may not be used to purchase
    alcoholic beverages, tobacco, paper goods, and other non-food
    items.[24] Heated and hot prepared foods are not considered
    staple foods and are also not eligible for purchase, except in some
    areas under certain circumstances.[25] On average, SNAP
    participants received an estimated $217.88 per month per person in
    regular SNAP benefits in FY 2021.[26] Each household's
    monthly benefit amount is based on the household's net income, so that
    if a household's net income after deductions is zero, the household
    receives the maximum SNAP benefit, and the benefit reduction rate is
    30% (meaning the monthly benefit is reduced by 30 for each dollar of
    net income).[27] During the COVID-19 pandemic, Congress
    provided all SNAP recipients the maximum benefit. The maximum SNAP
    benefit is tied to the cost of the USDA's Thrifty Food Plan (TFP), a
    diet plan intended to provide adequate nutrition consistent with the
    Dietary Guidelines for Americans, and which was updated in 2021 as
    directed by Congress, increasing SNAP benefits by
    21%.[28, 29]
    Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program's Impact on Child Health
        Research suggests that SNAP has positive impacts on health by
    reducing food insecurity and lifting individuals out of poverty.
    Research has shown that SNAP meets its goal of reducing hunger and food
    insecurity among participants, including
    children.[30, 31DD] Participation in SNAP has
    been shown to reduce the incidence of low-birth weight among newborns
    by 7% for whites and 5-11% for blacks.[32] Research on the
    relationship between SNAP purchasing power and children's health and
    health care utilization found that a 10% increase in SNAP purchasing
    power increases the likelihood a child had a preventive check-in in the
    past year by 8.1%, increases the likelihood that children had any
    doctor's visit in the past 12 months by 3.4%, and is associated with a
    22% reduction in the number of school days missed because of
    illness.[33] Research has shown that children receiving SNAP
    are less likely than low-income non-participants to be in fair or poor
    health or underweight, and their families are less likely to make
    tradeoffs between paying for health care and paying for other basic
    health needs, like food, housing, heating, and
    electricity.[34, 35] Reductions and cut offs in SNAP
    benefits because of increased income have also been associated with
    poorer child health.[36]
    Supplemental Nutrition Assistance and Diet Quality
        Although SNAP effectively alleviates food insecurity for children
    in terms of caloric, macronutrient, and micronutrient intake, SNAP
    participants are still struggling more than income-eligible and higher
    income nonparticipants to meet key dietary guidelines.
        The average USDA Healthy Eating Index (HEI) score among Americans
    is 58 (out of a possible 100), suggesting that the majority of
    Americans have suboptimal diets.[37] However, while other
    USDA food assistance programs, such as the Special Supplemental
    Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) and the
    National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and School Breakfast Program
    (SBP), significantly improve diet quality, research suggests that SNAP
    does not.
        The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) has
    frequently been used to assess Americans' dietary quality and health,
    including by income and SNAP participation status. A study using 2011-
    2016 NHANES data found that, on average, SNAP participants had lower
    total HEI scores than income-eligible and higher income nonparticipants
    (55, 57, and 60 points, respectively).[38DD] SNAP
    participants scored lower for total fruits, whole fruits, total
    vegetables, and added sugar components.[38DD]
    Adults participating in SNAP had a higher prevalence of obesity than
    matched income-eligible nonparticipants (44 versus
    38%).[38DD] Children participating in SNAP had a
    higher prevalence of elevated blood pressure compared with higher
    income non-participant children (9 versus
    7%).[38DD] In terms of disease risk, a higher
    percentage of SNAP participants than either income-eligible or higher
    income nonparticipants had very high or extremely high-disease risk (31
    versus 27%, and 26 and 11% versus 8 and 7%,
    respectively).[38DD]
        A study of 1999-2008 NHANES data found that children who received
    SNAP benefits had substandard diets, consuming 43% more SSBs, 47% more
    high-fat dairy, and 44% more processed meats than income-eligible
    nonparticipants.[39]
        A study of 1999-2014 NHANES data found that between 2003 and 2014,
    SNAP participants had less improvements in diet quality using American
    Heart Association (AHA) diet scores than both income-eligible
    nonparticipants and higher income individuals.[40]
    Disparities in diet quality persisted for most foods and nutrients and
    worsened for processed meats, added sugars and nuts and
    seeds.[40]
        In addition to NHANES, sales data have also been used to assess
    foods purchased using SNAP benefits. Sales data obtained from a large
    supermarket chain in the northeastern United States from April 2012 to
    April 2014 revealed that customer transactions paid at least partially
    with SNAP benefits included lower spending on fruits, vegetables, and
    poultry, and higher spending on SSBs, red meat, and convenience foods
    than transactions that did not involve SNAP.[41] A USDA
    study assessed the content of SNAP purchases in 2011 from a leading
    retailer and found that soft drinks were the number one purchase in
    terms of share of expenditures by SNAP households and the number two
    purchase by non-SNAP households.[42]
    Lessons Learned From Other Federal Feeding Programs
        In contrast to SNAP, other USDA feeding programs targeting children
    perform better with respect to diet quality. The NSLP, SBP, the Child
    and Adult Care Food Program, and the WIC Program all apply nutrition
    standards based on the Dietary Guidelines for Americans.
        The Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act (HHFKA) in 2010 established
    stronger nutrition standards for the NSLP and SBP, which significantly
    improved dietary quality. Specifically, the HHFKA regulations required
    schools to increase the amount of fruits and vegetables served and
    limit starchy vegetables; serve only low-fat or fat-free milk; and
    serve more whole grains.[43] The HHFKA also established
    standards for food and beverage products sold in schools outside of the
    breakfast and lunch programs, which eliminated most sugary beverages
    and reduced the sugar and calorie content of food products for
    sale.[44] Following the changes, the USDA found that the
    nutritional quality of NSLP lunches increased significantly between
    school year 2009-2010 and school year 2014-
    2015.[45DD] Evaluations found that students
    consumed more fruit, vegetables, whole grains, and fewer starch
    vegetables than before the HHFKA, without contributing to increases in
    food waste or reductions in program
    participation.[45DD, 46] The mean total HEI-2010
    score for NSLP lunches increased 41%--from 57.9 to 81.5 out of a
    possible 100.[45DD]
        Unlike SNAP, which does not limit food or nonalcoholic beverage
    purchases, WIC purchases are limited to different food packages for
    different groups of participants. Research has shown that WIC lowers
    Medicaid costs for participating women, and WIC participation is
    associated with longer gestation periods, higher birth weight, and
    lower infant mortality.[47, 48] The WIC food packages were
    revised in 2009 to align with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans more
    closely and to introduce incentives for the purchase of fruits and
    vegetables, which research showed was associated with a 17.5 and 27.8%
    increase in fresh and frozen vegetable purchases (respectively) and a
    28.6% increase in fresh fruit purchases.[49] The Centers for
    Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the USDA analyzed WIC data
    from 56 states and territories from 2010 and 2018 and found that 31 WIC
    agencies reported significant declines in obesity among children aged
    2-4 years.[50] Between 2010 and 2018, overall obesity
    prevalence among WIC participants aged 2-4 years decreased from 15.9 to
    14.4%.[50]
    Policy Interventions To Improve Health Outcomes for Supplemental
            Nutrition Assistance Program Participants
        There are three evidence-based policy changes that lawmakers should
    consider, and that pediatricians could support, to strengthen SNAP's
    effectiveness as a health intervention for children and families, build
    on the successes of WIC, CACFP and the NSLP and SBP, and help ensure
    that every child reaches the age of 18 at a healthy weight. First,
    policymakers should make diet quality a core SNAP objective and define
    and report on nutrition security. SNAP's current core objectives (food
    security and fiscal integrity) should be continued and supplemented
    with an additional, Congressionally mandated focus on diet quality and
    healthy nutrition. Adding a diet quality component to SNAP's current
    core objectives could be accomplished through the next farm bill (the
    omnibus, multiyear law that governs U.S. agricultural and food
    programs), an Executive Order, or a voluntary internal policy change at
    USDA. Once this core objective is in place, the USDA Economic Research
    Service (ERS) should include nutrition security in its annual reporting
    of U.S. food security. Nutrition security should be defined using an
    evidence-based metric such as USDA's HEI (e.g., nutrition-security
    defined as HEI of 80 or higher, nutrition-insecurity at HEI between 80
    and 60, and very-low-nutrition security defined as HEI below 60). In
    addition, the USDA should report on any policy changes that have been
    made to improve diet quality and nutrition, the impact of USDA policies
    on diet quality and healthy eating, and any additional authorities that
    the USDA has identified it needs in order to improve diet quality,
    nutrition, and healthy eating.
        Second, policymakers should strengthen requirements for SNAP-
    authorized retailers to promote healthier retail food environments,
    especially for large retailers such as Walmart, Kroger, and Amazon.
    SNAP-authorized retailers are currently required to either stock three
    units of three different varieties for each staple food category
    (vegetables or fruits; dairy products; meat, poultry, or fish; breads
    or cereals) on a continuous basis or a store must have more than 50% of
    its total gross retail sales from the sale of staple
    foods.[44] Despite these requirements, research shows that
    SNAP authorized retailers offer comparatively fewer fresh fruits and
    vegetables, whole-grain foods and low-fat dairy products in lower
    income communities than retailers in higher income
    communities.[51-55] SNAP retailers should be prohibited from
    in-store (brick and mortar and on-line) marketing of unhealthy foods
    such as sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) (e.g., endcap displays and
    favored placement, including for online purchases).
        Third, policymakers should support healthy purchases in SNAP by
    pairing incentives for purchasing fruits, vegetables, and other healthy
    foods with restrictions on unhealthy foods and sweetened beverages.
    Today, soft drinks are top commodity typically purchased by SNAP
    households.[42] Evidence suggests that restricting SSB
    purchases in SNAP could reduce the calories consumed from SSBs by 15%
    and reduce negative health consequences including obesity prevalence
    and diabetes.[56] A separate study of the impact of
    restricting SSBs on children's health found that if SSBs were
    substituted with fruit juice and milk, the restriction would be
    expected to reduce obesity prevalence among SNAP participants by 6.2
    percentage points.[57DD] A randomized controlled
    trial found that pairing incentives for purchasing more fruits and
    vegetables with restrictions on the purchase of less nutritious foods
    (e.g., SSBs, sweet baked goods, candies) improved diet quality, reduced
    consumptions of SSBs and sweets, and increased fruit intake compared
    with individuals who made purchases with no restrictions or
    incentives.[58]
        A survey of public attitudes towards policies to improve the
    nutritional impact of SNAP, including SNAP participants, found that 82%
    of respondents supported providing additional benefits to SNAP
    participants that can only be used on healthful foods, 69% of
    respondents supported removing SNAP benefits for SSBs, and of the 46%
    of respondents who initially opposed removing SSBs, 45% supported
    removing SNAP benefits for SSBs if the policy also included additional
    benefits to purchase healthful foods.[59]
        Multiple-expert, nonpartisan bodies have supported one or more of
    these recommendations, including the National Commission on Hunger; the
    Bipartisan Policy Center; Healthy Eating Research; and the Report of
    the 50th Anniversary of the White House Conference on Food, Nutrition,
    and Health.[60-63] They also build on the recommendations of
    the Dietary Guidelines for Americans; the CDC; the National Academy of
    Medicine; and the WHO.[64-67]
    How Pediatricians Can Leverage These Learnings
        Pediatricians can act to improve SNAP's efficacy as a health
    intervention by urging the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) to
    advocate for the three aforementioned policy recommendations in its
    legislative priorities. They can also advocate individually and with
    their local colleagues to their Senator & Representative to make these
    changes in the 2023 Farm Bill. Pediatricians can become involved with
    their state SNAP-Education (SNAP-Ed) program (SNAP-Ed is USDA's largest
    nutrition-education and obesity-prevention program) and seek to have
    our three recommendations implemented at the state level using SNAP-Ed
    funds.
    Conclusion
        SNAP has demonstrated its benefit as an economic support for
    children and families to reduce food insecurity and allow for greater
    spending on other vital expenditures, such as healthcare. However,
    research suggests that there is an opportunity to improve its efficacy
    as a health intervention for children and families, in line with other
    Federal food assistance programs.
    Acknowledgements
        Nourish Science (https://nourishscience.org/) for funding writing
    and open access.
    Financial support and sponsorship
        None.
    Conflicts of interest
        There are no conflicts of interest.

                       References and Recommended Reading

        1D. Bryan S., Afful J., Carroll M.D., et al. NHSR 158. National
     Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2017-March 2020 Pre-pandemic
     Data Files. Hyattsville, MD, 2021.

            This report presents prevalence estimates for child and adult
         obesity from the NHANES from 2017 to March 2020.

        2. Mokdad A.H., Ballestros K., Echko M., et al. The State of US
     Health, 1990-2016. JAMA 2018; 319: 1444.
        3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Adult Obesity Facts D
     Overweight & Obesity. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/
     adult.html. [Accessed 02 September 2022].
        4D. O'Hearn M., Lauren B.N., Wong J.B., et al. Trends and
     disparities in cardio metabolichealth among U.S. adults, 1999-2018. J.
     Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2022; 80: 138-151.

            This study investigates U.S. trends in optimal cardiometabolic
         health from 1999 to 2018.

        5D. O'Hearn M., Liu J., Cudhea F., et al. Coronavirus disease 2019
     hospitalizations attributable to cardiometabolic conditions in the
     United States: a comparative risk assessment analysis. J. Am. Heart.
     Assoc. 2021; 10: 1-27.

            This study estimates the absolute and proportional COVID-19
         hospitalizations in U.S. adults attributable to four major U.S.
         cardiometabolic conditions, separately and jointly, and by race/
         ethnicity, age, and sex.

        6. USDA ERS--Definitions of Food Security. Available at: https://
     www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-
     u-s/definitions-of-food-security/. [Accessed 17 September 2022]
        7D. Coleman-Jensen A., Rabbitt M.P., Gregory C.A., Singh A.
     Household food security in the United States in 2021. 2022.

            This report provides statistics on food security in U.S.
         households throughout 2021 based on Current Population Survey Food
         Security Supplement data collected in December 2021.

        8D. Coleman-Jensen A., Rabbitt M.P., Gregory C.A., Singh A.
     Household Food Security in the United States in 2020. 2021. https://
     www.ers.usda.gov/publications/pub-details/?pubid=102075. [Accessed 02
     September 2022].

            This report provides statistics on food security in U.S.
         households throughout 2020 based on Current Population Survey Food
         Security Supplement data collected in December 2020.

        9. Geraghty A.A., Lindsay K.L., Alberdi G., et al. Nutrition during
     pregnancy impacts offspring's epigenetic status--evidence from human
     and animal studies. Nutr. Metab. Insights 2015; 8 (Suppl. 1): 41-47.
        10. Pascoe J.M., Wood D.L., Duffee J.H., Kuo A. Mediators and
     adverse effects of child poverty in the United States. Pediatrics 2016;
     137:e20160340.
        11. Augusto A.L.P., de Abreu Rodrigues A.V., Domingos T.B., Salles-
     Costa R. Household food insecurity associated with gestational and
     neonatal outcomes: a systematic review. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2020;
     20: 1-11.
        12. Drennen C.R., Sharon M., Coleman M.S., et al. Food insecurity,
     health, and development in children under age four years. Pediatrics
     2019; 144: e20190824.
        13. Berkowitz S.A., Seligman H.K., Choudhry N.K. Treat or eat: food
     insecurity, cost-related medication underuse, and unmet needs. Am. J.
     Med. 2014; 127: 303.e3-310.e3.
        14. Berkowitz S.A., Basu S., Meigs J.B., Seligman H.K. Food
     insecurity and health care expenditures in the United States, 2011-
     2013. Health Serv. Res. 2018; 53: 1600-1620.
        15. Peltz A., Garg A. Food insecurity and health care use.
     Pediatrics 2019; 144: e20190347.
        16. Herman D., Afulani P., Coleman-Jensen A., Harrison G.G. Food
     insecurity and cost-related medication underuse among nonelderly adults
     in a nationally representative sample. Am. J. Public Health 2015;
     105(10): e48-e59.
        17. Gundersen C., Ziliak J.P. Food insecurity and health outcomes.
     Health Aff. 2015; 34: 1830-1839.
        18. Laraia B.A. Food insecurity and chronic disease. Adv. Nutr.
     2013; 4: 203-212.
        19. Hanson K.L., Connor L.M. Food insecurity and dietary quality in
     US adults and children: a systematic review. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2014;
     100: 684-692.
        20. Text--H.R. 2471--117th Congress (2021-2022): Consolidated
     Appropriations Act, 2022 D Congress.gov D Library of Congress.
     Available at: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/
     2471/text. [Accessed 02 September 2022].
        21. United States Department of Agriculture. Percentage of
     participating SNAP households with children (FY 2018). Available at:
     https://www.fns.usda.gov/SNAP-State-characteristics. [Accessed 02
     September 2022].
        22. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. A quick guide to SNAP
     eligibility and benefits. Available at: https://www.cbpp.org/research/
     food-assistance/a-quick-guide-to-snap-eligibility-and-benefits.
     [Accessed 02 September 2022].
        23. United States Department of Agriculture. Where can I use SNAP
     EBT? Available at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/retailer-locator.
     [accessed 02 September 2022].
        24. United States Department of Agriculture. What can SNAP Buy?
     Available at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/eligible-food-items.
     [Accessed 02 September 2022].
        25. United States Department of Agriculture. Retailer eligibility--
     prepared foods and heated foods. Available at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/
     snap/retailer-eligibility-prepared-foods-and-heated-foods. [Accessed 02
     September 2022].
        26. United States Department of Agriculture. SNAP Data Tables.
     Available at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/supplemental-nutrition-
     assistance-program-snap. [Accessed 02 September 2022].
        27. United States Department of Agriculture. SNAP eligibility.
     Available at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/recipient/eligibility.
     [Accessed 02 September 2022].
        28. United States Department of Agriculture. USDA modernizes the
     thrifty food plan, updates SNAP Benefits. Available at: https://
     www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2021/08/16/usda-modernizes-thrifty-
     food-plan-updates-snap-benefits. [Accessed 02 September 2022].
        29. United States Department of Agriculture. SNAP and the Thrifty
     Food Plan. Available at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/thriftyfoodplan.
     [Accessed 02 September 2022].
        30. Ratcliffe C., McKernan S.-M. How much does SNAP reduce food
     insecurity? 2010. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/
     publication/44206966_How_much_does_SNAP_reduce_food_insecurity.
     [Accessed 2 September 2022].
        31DD. Mabli J., Ohls J., Dragoset L., et al. Measuring the effect of
     Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) participation on food
     security. Mathematica Policy Research Reports. 2022. Available at:
     https://ideas.repec.org/p/mpr/mprres/
     69d901432c7a46779666a240a0974a5d.html. [Accessed 2 September 2022].

            This study uses survey data between October 2011 and September
         2012 to assess how household food security and food expenditures
         vary with SNAP participation and examines how the relationship
         between SNAP and food security and between SNAP and food
         expenditures vary by key household characteristics and
         circumstances.

        32. Almond D., Hoynes H.W., Schanzenbach D.W. Inside the war on
     poverty: the impact of food stamps on birth outcomes. Rev. Econ. Stat.
     2011; 93: 387-403.
        33. Bronchetti E.T., Christensen G., Hoynes H.W. Local food prices,
     SNAP purchasing power, and child health. J. Health Econ. 2019; 68:
     102231.
        34. Joyce K.M., Breen A., de Cuba S.E., et al. household hardships,
     public programs, and their associations with the health and development
     of very young children: insights from Children's HealthWatch. J. Appl.
     Res. Child. 2012; 3: 2-24.
        35. Children's Health Watch. The SNAP Vaccine: Boosting Children's
     Health. Available at: https://childrenshealthwatch.org/the-snap-vaccine-
     boosting-childrens-health/. [Accessed 02 September 2022].
        36. de Cuba S.E., Chilton M., Bovell-Ammon A., et al. Loss of SNAP
     is associated with food insecurity and poor health in working families
     with young children. Health Aff. (Millwood) 2019; 38: 765-773.
        37. United States Department of Agriculture. HEI Scores for
     Americans. Available at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/hei-scores-americans.
     [Accessed 2 September 2022].
        38DD. United States Department of Agriculture. Indicators of Diet
     Quality, Nutrition, and Health for Americans by Program Participation
     Status, 2011-2016. Available at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/
     indicators-diet-quality-nutrition-and-health-americans-program-
     participation-status-2011. [Accessed 30 December 2021].

            This study uses NHANES data to examine the relationship between
         SNAP participation and indicators of diet quality, nutrition and
         health by comparing SNAP participants with income-eligible and
         higher income nonparticipants, by age and gender.

        39. Leung C.W., Blumenthal S.J., Hoffnagle E.E., et al. Associations
     of food stamp participation with dietary quality and obesity in
     children. Pediatrics 2013; 131: 463-472.
        40. Fang Zhang F., Liu J., Rehm C.D., et al. Trends and disparities
     in diet quality among US adults by supplemental nutrition assistance
     program participation status. JAMA Netw. Open 2018; 1: e180237-
     e1180237.
        41. Franckle R.L., Moran A., Hou T., et al. Transactions at a
     Northeastern supermarket chain: differences by supplemental nutrition
     assistance program use. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2017; 53: e131-e138.
        42. United States Department of Agriculture. Foods Typically
     Purchased by Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
     Households. 2016. Available at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/foods-
     typically-purchased-supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap-
     households. [Accessed 02 September 2022].
        43. United States Department of Agriculture. Nutrition standards in
     the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs. Final rule.
     Fed. Regist. 2012; 77: 4088-4167.
        44. United States Department of Agriculture. National School Lunch
     Program and School Breakfast Program: Nutrition Standards for All Foods
     Sold in School as Required by the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of
     2010. Final rule and interim final rule. Fed. Regist. 2016; 81: 50131-
     50151.
        45DD. United States Department of Agriculture. School Nutrition and
     Meal Cost Study. Available at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/school-
     nutrition-and-meal-cost-study. [Accessed April 2019].

            This report presents findings from the School Nutrition and Meal
         Cost study, the first comprehensive, nationally representative
         study of the school meal programs since the Healthy Hunger-Free
         Kids Act reforms were implemented.

        46. Cullen K.W., Chen T.A., Dave J.M. Changes in foods selected and
     consumed after implementation of the new National School Lunch Program
     meal patterns in southeast Texas. Prev. Med. Rep. 2015; 2: 440-443.
        47. Avruch S., Cackley A.P. Savings achieved by giving WIC benefits
     to women prenatally. Public Health Rep. 1995; 110: 27-34.
        48. Khanani I., Elam J., Hearn R., et al. The impact of prenatal WIC
     participation on infant mortality and racial disparities. Am. J. Public
     Health 2010; 100 (Suppl. 1): S204-S209.
        49. Andreyeva T., Luedicke J. Incentivizing fruit and vegetable
     purchases among participants in the Special Supplemental Nutrition
     Program for Women, Infants, and Children. Public Health Nutr. 2015; 18:
     33-41.
        50. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Available at:
     obesity among young children enrolled in WIC. Available at: https://
     www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/obesity-among-WIC-enrolled-young-
     children.html#highweight. [Accessed 02 September 2022].
        51. Shannon J. What does SNAP benefit usage tell us about food
     access in low-income neighborhoods? Soc. Sci. Med. 2014; 107: 89-99.
        52. Rigby S., Leone A.F., Kim H., et al. Food Deserts in Leon
     County, FL: Disparate Distribution of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
     Program-Accepting Stores by Neighborhood Characteristics. J. Nutr.
     Educ. Behav. 2012; 44: 539-547.
        53. Laska M.N., Caspi C.E., Pelletier J.E., et al. Lack of healthy
     food in small-size to mid-size retailers participating in the
     Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Minneapolis-St. Paul,
     Minnesota, 2014. Prev. Chronic Dis. 2019; 12: 150-171.
        54. Caspi C.E., Pelletier J.E., Harnack L., et al. Differences in
     healthy food supply and stocking practices between small grocery
     stores, gas-marts, pharmacies and dollar stores. Public Health Nutr.
     2016; 19: 540-547.
        55. Racine E.F., Batada A., Solomon C.A., Story M. Availability of
     foods and beverages in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program-
     authorized dollar stores in a region of North Carolina. J. Acad. Nutr.
     Diet 2016; 116: 1613-1620.
        56. Basu S., Seligman H.K., Gardner C., Bhattacharya J. Ending SNAP
     subsidies for sugar-sweetened beverages could reduce obesity and type 2
     diabetes. Health Aff. (Millwood) 2017; 33: 1032-1039.
        57DD. Choi S.E., Wright D.R., Bleich S.N. Impact of restricting
     sugar-sweetened beverages from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
     Program on Children's Health. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2021; 60: 276-284.

            This study uses National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey
         data and a microsimulation model to assess expected impact of
         restricting sugar-sweetened beverage purchases with SNAP benefits
         on children's daily sugar-sweetened beverage consumption, total
         calorie intake, BMI, incidence of dental caries and obesity
         prevalence.

        58. Harnack L., Oakes J.M., Elbel B., et al. Effects of subsidies
     and prohibitions on nutrition in a food benefit program: a randomized
     clinical trial. JAMA Intern. Med. 2016; 176: 1610-1619.
        59. Long M.W., Leung C.W., Cheung L.W.Y., et al. Public support for
     policies to improve the nutritional impact of the Supplemental
     Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Public Health Nutr. 2014; 17: 219-
     224.
        60. N. Commission on Hunger. Freedom from hunger: an achievable goal
     for the United States of America. 2015.
        61. Bipartisan Policy Center SNAP Task Force. Leading with
     nutrition: leveraging Federal programs for better health. 2018.
     Available at: https://bipartisanpolicy.org/report/leading-with-
     nutrition-leveraging-federal-programs-for-better-health/. [Accessed 3
     September 2022].
        62. Healthy Eating Research. Strengthening the Public Health Impacts
     of SNAP: Key Opportunities for the Next Farm Bill. 2021. Available at:
     https://healthyeatingresearch.org/research/strengthening-the-public-
     health-impacts-of-snap-key-opportunities-for-the-next-farm-bill/.
     [Accessed 3 September 2022].
        63. Final Report on the 50th Anniversary of the White House
     Conference on Food, Nutrition, and Health: Honoring the Past, Taking
     Actions for our Future. 2020. Available at: https://sites.tufts.edu/
     foodnutritionandhealth2019/ [Accessed 3 September 2022].
        64. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Dietary Guidelines
     for Americans 2015-2020, ``Cut Down on Added Sugars,'' 2015. Available
     at: https://health.gov/sites/default/files/2019-10/DGA_Cut-Down-On-
     Added-Sugars.pdf. [Accessed 3 September 2022].
        65. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Get the facts: sugar-
     sweetened beverages and consumption. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/
     nutrition/data-statistics/sugar-sweetened-beverages-intake.html.
     [Accessed 03 September 2022].
        66. Glickman D., Parker L., Sim L.J., et al., Committee on
     Accelerating Progress in Obesity Prevention; Food and Nutrition Board;
     Institute of Medicine. Accelerating progress in obesity prevention:
     solving the weight of the nation. Washington (DC): National Academies
     Press (U.S.); 2012.
        67. World Health Organization. Taxes on sugary drinks: why do it?
     2017. Available at: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/
     260253/WHO-NMH-ND-16.5Rev.1-eng.pdf. [Accessed 3 September 2022].

    Papers of particular interest, published within the annual period of
      review, have been highlighted as: D of special interest, DD of
      outstanding interest.

                                   Article 2

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    [https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelbernick/2023/06/06/work-
    requirements-the-ongoing-lessons-of-america-works/?sh=1ba5b7bb5765]
    Work Requirements? The Ongoing Lessons Of `America Works'
    Michael Bernick,\1\ Contributor
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelbernick/.

    Jun. 6, 2023, 09:40 a.m. EDT

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              ``Are there no workhouses?'', Scrooge asks the two men
            soliciting donations for the poor. Today, critics of work
            requirements compare these requirements to the workhouses of
            the past. But the truth is much different.
              Merchant's House Museum

              (Work requirements for government benefit recipients emerged
            as a major issue in the debt ceiling negotiations, and will be
            a major issue going forward. It's time to listen to those who
            know best the impact of these requirements: former benefit
            recipients and the community groups that have assisted them.)

        In the recent debt ceiling negotiations, work requirements for TANF
    (welfare) recipients and SNAP (food stamp) recipients became one the
    most contentious items. Democratic legislators denounced these
    requirements as ``cruel'', ``heartless'', and ``senseless'', and vowed
    to continue to oppose them.
        One need not romanticize or oversell the 1996 Federal welfare
    reforms and current work requirements to recognize the value that work
    requirements have come to play over the past twenty-five years. These
    work requirements have changed the culture and practice of welfare
    offices in better assisting welfare recipients into employment. This
    point is made repeatedly by those who should know best: former welfare
    recipients and the workforce groups that have assisted them. Let's
    listen to one of the major nationwide workforce groups involved today
    in implementing work requirements.
        Since its founding in 1984 by Peter Cove and Lee Bowes, America
    Works has provided job preparation, placement and retention for
    unemployed welfare recipients, ex-offenders, workers with disabilities,
    the homeless and veterans. Over the years, it has grown to one of the
    largest such agencies in the nation, with offices in 27 cities, serving
    nearly 40,000 clients per year.
        ``What we do in job placement is not rocket science,'' notes
    America Works Chief Operating Officer David Aguado. That's true.
    America Works has always been about doing the basics most effectively.
    It has fine-tuned training, placement and retention processes over the
    years, and its growth has been driven by results. It provides
    individualized services of assessment, placement, on-going support
    following placement, and on-going skills upgrading for mobility. It has
    a library of over 1,000 in-person and virtual training curricula, and
    ties with both major national employers and local employers in each of
    its service areas.
        In the early years of America Works, Cove and Bowles helped spread
    the ``strengths-based'' model for employment. Whereas others in the
    welfare and social work systems looked at welfare recipients and saw
    mainly weaknesses and dysfunction, America Works emphasized the
    strengths that these persons brought to the job market. Whereas others
    talked of why welfare recipients were not ready for employment, America
    Works embraced direct job placement, and an advancement process of ``a
    job, a better job, a career.''
        As Bowes recalls, work requirements significantly improved the
    employment prospects of welfare recipients, especially after the
    Federal welfare reform of 1996. They did so in two important ways.
    First, work requirements changed the culture of welfare offices. After
    welfare reform, welfare offices developed from a culture of benefit-
    distribution, suspicion, and paperwork to one of employment and action.
    Bowes explains:

              ``When we began in the 1980s, welfare caseworkers were only
            telling clients ways to increase benefits. With welfare reform
            the culture changed to an employment focus. Though caseworkers
            initially felt threatened that they would lose their jobs, they
            came to find their new roles much more gratifying.''

        Second, work requirements helped move forward a portion of the
    welfare population who had become stuck in their lives--due to
    depression or inability to identify resources, or a hundred other
    different reasons. The work requirements helped them to get
    ``unstuck''.

              ``At the beginning people were so afraid because many
            believed no one would ever hire them. As they saw their friends
            get jobs and keep jobs their motivation increased. I remember
            one woman who saw a neighbor, walking down the city streets,
            dressed at 8 in the morning. She was told that her neighbor
            obtained a job and here's where you should go to get a job.
            Word of mouth and the efforts on the government totally
            transformed the nature of the lives of those on public
            assistance.''

        Today, America Works collaborates in job placement with social
    services departments and local workforce boards throughout the nation,
    including in Fresno County, California. Blake Konczal, the Executive
    Director of the Fresno Regional Workforce Development Board, has been
    active in the public workforce system since the 1990s. In Fresno
    County, the years since the welfare reform of 1996 have resulted in a
    heightened job placement orientation at the social services department,
    and partnership with the workforce board. Additional supports and
    supportive services have accompanied the work requirements, to aid the
    transition of TANF recipients into jobs. Konczal explains:

              ``Welfare reform in 1996 and the work requirements brought
            new and logical partnerships between local workforce boards and
            social service offices. Logical in that we had a common goal of
            assisting public welfare recipients into unsubsidized
            employment. Welfare offices came to see themselves in a new
            way, as job placement agents. This was of immense benefit to
            the entire workforce system and more importantly to our common
            (and now employed) clients.''

        America Works provides employment preparation and job search
    assistance as part of the County's Job Readiness program (JobWISE).\2\
    Nuvia Varela, the program manager for America Works in Fresno, adds:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhZ5bOdvpOg.

              ``It can be challenging for many of our participants to find
            and keep a job due to coping with many obstacles such as
            substance abuse, domestic violence, child support, or mental
            health issues. JobWISE allows us to meet the needs of the
            participant and assist them in achieving financial independence
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            in our community.''

        Marsha Netus, Vice President and Regional Director of America Works
    in the Baltimore-Washington D.C. area, has been involved in placement
    efforts for TANF recipients and also ex-offenders since the late 1990s.
    Today, one of her main projects is a bail diversion initiative for non-
    violent offenders in Baltimore, that incorporates strong work
    requirements. She highlights the structure that work requirements have
    provided for ex-offenders as well as TANF recipients:

              ``Individuals not accustomed to a formalized system like a
            basic work schedule often struggle adapting into employment.
            Getting a job is not the issue; learning to sustain a routine
            can be daunting for those reentering into the workplace. A
            formalized system like work requirements can be the stepping
            stone for this training.''

        Netus further notes that in practice welfare departments make wide
    allowance for recipients who have significant mental or physical health
    illnesses or other serious impediments to employment. These recipients
    are exempted from work requirements. There remains wide discretion in
    the program administration, that is utilized by individual case
    managers.

              ``America Works is not oblivious to the challenges that
            affect families into complying with regulations. We pride our
            ourselves in fostering relationships that provide comprehensive
            services for those transitioning into employment. Our
            collaboration with local agencies ensure customers have the
            adequate support for success. There are cases where exemptions
            may be the best course of action, and provisions are already
            available to support them.''

        America Works is only one of hundreds of workforce providers
    throughout the nation that daily interact with benefit recipients. I
    urge critics of work requirements to talk to these providers as well as
    former recipients of TANF, food stamps or bail diversion programs.
        No one in the workforce system regards the work requirements as the
    full answer. Other policies remain to be developed, particularly
    policies that can improve low wage jobs for all workers.\3\ But the
    work requirements are one element in an effective workforce system.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelbernick/2023/05/16/hell-to-
    pay-michael-lind-on-a-true-good-jobs-strategy/?sh=5b7d22bb4d16.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Meanwhile, America Works itself evolves with the evolving job
    market, updating training curricula, adding new programs for workers
    with disabilities as well as refugees, introducing a Fellows program
    for aspiring workforce professionals. Cove and Bowles continue to be at
    the center of America Works, not at all beaten down, even after nearly
    a half century of battling the social welfare and political
    establishments.
                                   Article 3

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    [https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/job-openings-unexpectedly-surge-
    april-highest-level-months]

    May 31, 2023 11:57 a.m. EDT
    Job openings unexpectedly surge in April to highest level in 3 months
    Job vacancies surge above 10M, keeping pressure on the Federal Reserve
    By Megan Henney,\1\ FOXBusiness \2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ https://foxbusiness.com/person/h/megan-henney.
        \2\ https://www.foxbusiness.com/.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              Editor's note: the above video is retained in Committee file.
    Probability for July rate cut falls on strong jobs data \3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ https://www.foxbusiness.com/video/6326849329112.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        NewEdge Wealth chief investment officer Cameron Dawson discusses
    seasonal stretch as investors eye the Presidential cycle for stock
    guidance on 'Making Money with Charles Payne.'
        U.S. job openings unexpectedly jumped in April to the highest level
    in 3 months, keeping pressure on Federal Reserve policymakers as they
    try to cool the economy with an aggressive interest-rate hike campaign.
        The Labor Department said Wednesday that there were 10.1 million
    job openings in April, an increase from the upwardly revised 9.75
    million openings reported in the previous month. Economists surveyed by
    Refinitiv expected a reading of 9.38 million.
        It marked a major increase from March, when the government reported
    an upwardly revised 9.75 million number of available jobs.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ https://foxbusiness.com/category/jobs.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Job openings remain historically high: Before the COVID-19 pandemic
    \5\ began in early 2020, the highest on record was 7.6 million. There
    are roughly 1.7 jobs per unemployed American.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ https://www.foxbusiness.com/category/coronavirus.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Housing Recession Isn't Over Yet \6\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ https://foxbusiness.com/economy/housing-recession-isnt-over-
    yet.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              A general view shows construction workers standing before the
            Manhattan skyline and Empire State Building in New York City on
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Jan. 24, 2023. (Ed Jones/AFP via Getty Images/Getty Images).

        The Federal Reserve \7\ closely watches these figures as it tries
    to gauge labor market tightness and wrestle inflation under control.
    The higher-than-expected figure indicates that demand for employees
    still far outpaces the supply of available workers.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ https://foxbusiness.com/category/the-fed.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The central bank has responded to the inflation crisis and the
    extremely tight labor market by raising interest rates at the fastest
    pace in decades. Officials have so far approved ten straight rate hikes
    and have signaled that another increase is on the table at their June
    meeting following a slew of surprisingly hot economic data.
        The latest jobs data could give policymakers more space to hike
    again.
        Traders are now pricing in a 66.3% chance of another quarter-
    percentage-point increase during the Fed's June 13-14 meeting--a
    significant rise from just 1 day ago, when 36.4% projected another
    hike, according to the CME Group's FedWatch tool.
    Majority Of Workers Regret Quitting During `Great Resignation' \8\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ https://foxbusiness.com/economy/majority-workers-regret-
    quitting-during-great-resignation.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              A ``Now Hiring'' sign is seen outside a job fair at a
            Schneider Electric manufacturing facility in Hopkins, South
            Carolina, on Jan. 18, 2023. (Micah Green/Bloomberg via Getty
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Images/Getty Images)

        ``Not only did today's job openings number came in much stronger
    than expected at 10.1 million, last month's number was revised
    higher,'' said Mike Loewengart, head of model portfolio construction at
    Morgan Stanley Global Investment Office. ``Friday's jobs report may
    tell a different tale, but this is just one more sign the labor market
    is still hot and raises the pressure on the Fed to raise interest rates
    further this year.''
        The number of Americans quitting their jobs, meanwhile, was mostly
    unchanged at 3.8 million, or roughly 2.4% of the workforce, indicating
    that workers remain confident they can leave their jobs and find
    employment elsewhere.
        Switching jobs has been a windfall for many workers over the past
    year: Roughly 49% of job-switchers saw their real hourly wage increase
    faster than inflation last year, compared with just 42% of workers who
    stayed in the same job, according to recent Atlanta Fed data.\9\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ https://foxbusiness.com/economy/americans-switching-jobs-still-
    seeing-huge-pay-gains.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Article 4

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    [https://nypost.com/2023/06/10/the-political-battle-over-food-stamps-
    and-welfare-programs/]
    The political battle over food stamps and welfare programs
    By Peter Cove \1\ and Jason Turner \1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ https://nypost.com/2023/06/10/the-political-battle-over-food-
    stamps-and-welfare-programs/.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    June 10, 2023 4:00 p.m.

    Updated \1\

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              The debt-ceiling deal from earlier this month thrust the
            issue of work requirements for welfare and food stamps back
            into the spotlight. During the Giuliani Administrations,
            programs were devised to help support such requirements--but
            they've mostly been disbanded.
              Shutterstock.

        The furious Beltway debate over raising the national debt ceiling
    earlier this month mostly hinged on just a few Federal programs, with
    Republicans aiming to score political points for cutting spending and
    Democrats committed to preserving entitlements at all costs.
        One issue featured in the debate inspired superheated rhetoric from
    both sides of the political spectrum: food stamps.
        The nation's largest welfare program has grown dramatically since
    2000: from 17 million to 41 million \2\ recipients, even though
    unemployment has dropped from 4% to 3.4% during the same period. Today
    in the prime working-age years of 18-49 only 28% of singles without
    dependents and 50% of adults \3\ with school age children are working.
    Why is that?
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ https://fns-prod.azureedge.us/sites/default/files/resource-
    files/SNAPsummary-5.pdf.
        \3\ https://www.bls.gov/data/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Currently, few food stamp recipients are required to either work or
    look for work as a condition of receiving benefits. Over the past
    decade, the work-based welfare reforms which were so successful in the
    1990s have been mostly dismantled. Which is why the debt ceiling's most
    significant provision may be a renewed focus on compulsory employment
    for older recipients of food stamps,\4\ which are officially known as
    SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/29/us/politics/debt-limit-deal-
    food-stamps.html.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              While some older Americans may now be forced to work to
            receive food stamps under the debt deal, veterans will be
            exempt from such rules.
              Getty Images.

        Food stamp benefits are associated with a host of chronic diet-
    related conditions, such as hypertension, obesity, diabetes and heart
    disease. The diseases exist among some 30% of adults \5\ receiving
    benefits, and are only exacerbated by idleness and non-work.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Promoting-
    Mobility-Through-SNAP.pdf
    ?x91208.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Under the debt-limit deal, some Americans 54 and under will be
    compelled to work in order to receive foods stamps; previously the cut-
    off age was 49. But the deal also exempts from work employment
    obligations those who need it most: homeless folks with drug addictions
    who would benefit from structured workdays while they recover;
    unemployed veterans who have shown themselves able-bodied enough to
    defend the country; and foster-care children turning 18 and about to be
    launched into adulthood and self-care.
        These three populations are among the most in need of work and
    income. Yet progressives treat them as if no-strings-attached coddling
    is actually in their best interests.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              During the tenure of former Mayor Rudy Giuliani, mandates
            were initiated to compel folks receiving food stamps and
            welfare to also secure employment. By the end of his tenure,
            42% of welfare recipients were in the labor force, up from 16%
            before he took office.
              Getty Images.

        In the 1990s, Mayor Rudy Giuliani declared he wanted all welfare
    recipients to go to work. But not all welfare recipients want to work.
    So the Giuliani Administration developed a welfare system in which work
    obligations were applied to applicants of all capabilities--which we
    called ``universal work engagement.''
        Three work tiers were created, starting with unsubsidized private
    work. During the 6 week application process, every applicant was
    obligated to participate in a formalized job search overseen by the
    City's welfare agency. The vast majority of applicants went right to
    work on their own once they knew that benefits would not otherwise be
    forthcoming.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              Editor's note: the above video is retained in Committee file.

        The next tier was the Work Experience Program (or WEP)--city
    ``workfare'' jobs. At its peak, over 4,000 recipients served New York
    by working in the parks, maintaining city streets and answering phones
    in city offices, all in exchange for temporary assistance.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              Homeless folks will also be exempt from work mandates even
            though they are among the most in need of steady employment.
              Getty Images.

        Last, for those who claimed a health condition, the new system did
    not just accept a ``doctor's note.'' New York's welfare agency hired
    its own physicians, who performed a rigorous, independent health review
    of each applicant. Most were found capable of work and were required to
    do so. Only 17% of those claiming health problems were deemed likely to
    qualify for Federal disability.
        The Giuliani reforms did not stop there. The mayor also ended the
    usual practice of awarding guaranteed contracts to private agencies
    which ``help'' recipients find work. Instead, he only paid these
    nonprofit and for-profit agencies each time they placed a recipient in
    a job. Bonuses were awarded for the newly employed who remained in
    their jobs. Unsurprisingly, many of those private agencies ended their
    partnerships with City Hall or went bankrupt.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              Food stamps are the nation's largest welfare program with
            some 41 million recipients nationwide.
              Shutterstock.

        Other organizations such as America Works, thrived in the new
    environment, viewing work not as a four-letter-word, but as a vital
    weapon in the war on poverty. As we chronicled in our recent
    documentary, Gotham: The Fall and Rise of New York,\6\ welfare rolls in
    New York City dropped from 1.2 million to an astounding 300,000 in just
    over a decade.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ https://gothammovie.com/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Two years into Mayor Giuliani's term in 1996 the census bureau
    found that of New York's single mothers without a high school education
    only 16% were working. By 2001, Giuliani's last year 42% were in the
    labor force.\7\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ https://smhttp-ssl-58547.nexcesscdn.net/nycss/images/uploads/
    pubs/MotherWork.Sept20
    02.pdf.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              Decades ago, thousands of New Yorkers were involved in
            ``workfare'' programs which helped them secure employment while
            they received aid. The program was criticized and protested by
            some progressive groups.
              Boycott Workfare.

        About \1/3\ of young adult food stamp recipients report feeling
    hopeless or worthless. Work requirements for welfare benefits are not
    cruel and unusual; rather those required to work typically thrive both
    during and after participation in mandatory employment programs.
                                   Article 5
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    [https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/us-job-openings-unexpectedly-rise-
    april-2023-05-31/]
    US labor market remains resilient as job openings climb, layoffs drop
    By Lucia Mutikani \1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ https://www.reuters.com/authors/lucia-mutikani/.

    May 31, 20235:12 PM EDT Updated 21 days ago

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              Editor's note: the above video is retained in Committee file.

       Job openings increase 358,000 to 10.1 million in April

       Layoffs drop 264,000; voluntary quits decrease 49,000

        Washington, May 31 (Reuters)--U.S. job openings unexpectedly rose
    in April and data for the prior month was revised higher, pointing to
    persistent strength in the labor market that could compel the Federal
    Reserve to raise interest rates again in June.
        The Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey, or JOLTS report, from
    the Labor Department on Wednesday also showed layoffs declined
    significantly last month. There were 1.8 job openings for every
    unemployed person in April, up from 1.7 in March, and well above the
    1.0-1.2 range that is considered consistent with a jobs market that is
    not generating too much inflation.
        The report added to data this month, including consumer spending,
    in suggesting that the economy regained speed at the start of the
    second quarter.
        Demand has remained resilient despite 500 basis points worth of
    interest rate increases from the Fed since March 2022, when the U.S.
    central bank embarked on its fastest monetary policy tightening
    campaign since the 1980s to tame inflation. The flow of strong data has
    diminished expectations that the Fed could pause further rate increases
    next month.
        ``This is not what the Fed was hoping to see,'' said Priscilla
    Thiagamoorthy, a senior economist at BMO Capital Markets in Toronto.
        Job openings, a measure of labor demand, increased by 358,000 to
    10.1 million on the last day of April. Data for March was revised
    higher to show 9.75 million job openings instead of the previously
    reported 9.59 million. The April data ended three straight monthly
    decreases in job vacancies. Economists polled by Reuters had forecast
    9.375 million job openings.
        The increase in job vacancies was led by retail trade, where there
    were an additional 209,000 openings. There were 185,000 more job
    openings in healthcare and social assistance, while vacancies jumped by
    154,000 in the transportation, warehousing, and utilities sector.
    Notable increases were also reported in construction as well as finance
    and insurance industries.
        But job openings declined in durable goods manufacturing, which has
    seen demand for goods slowing as higher interest rates increase the
    cost of credit. Spending is also shifting back to services.
        Job openings surged in the West and Midwest. They rose moderately
    in the South, but fell in the Northeast.
        Businesses with one to nine employees and those with 250 to 999
    workers accounted for last month's rise in job vacancies. Companies
    with 10 to 49 workers reported a sharp drop.
        The job openings rate rose to 6.1% from 5.9% in March.
        The Fed's ``Beige Book'' \2\ report on Wednesday described the
    labor market as having ``continued to be strong'' in May, ``with
    contacts reporting difficulty finding workers across a wide range of
    skill levels and industries.''
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/us-economy-little-changed-
    recent-weeks-outlook-deteriorated-fed-survey-2023-05-31/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        But it also noted that contacts across districts reported that
    ``the labor market had cooled some, highlighting easier hiring in
    construction, transportation and finance.''

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              A 7-Eleven convenience store has a sign in the window reading
            ``Now Hiring'' in Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S., July 8, 2022.
            Reuters/Brian Snyder

        Stocks on Wall Street were trading lower. The dollar rose against a
    basket of currencies. U.S. Treasury prices rose.
    JOLTS: U.S. Labor Market Churn

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              Source: Refinitiv Datastream--Reuters graphic/Stephen Culp
            31/05/2023.
    Fewer Resignations
        Minutes of the Fed's May 2-3 policy meeting,\3\ which were
    published last week, showed policymakers ``generally agreed'' the need
    for further rate hikes ``had become less certain.''
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/fed-agreed-may-need-more-
    rate-hikes-was-less-certain-meeting-minutes-show-2023-05-24/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Some economists are, however, skeptical that the JOLTS report is
    offering a clear read of the labor market.
        According to Goldman Sachs economist Ronnie Walker, a low response
    rate to the survey, which has reduced the sample size, could be
    boosting the JOLTS data, noting that some alternative measures of job
    openings from LinkUp and ZipRecruiter, have declined sharply in the
    past year.
        But Walker also acknowledged that some of the alternative measures
    of job openings could be downwardly biased, as their samples could be
    skewed toward companies which are more likely to have an online
    presence and have cut job openings sharply.
        ``As a result, we suspect that the `true' level of job openings
    lies somewhere in the middle of the range implied by JOLTS and
    alternative measures of job openings,'' Walker said.
        The JOLTS report showed layoffs fell 264,000 to 1.6 million,
    consistent with the very low levels of weekly unemployment claims data.
    Layoffs decreased by 113,000 in construction, another sector hard hit
    by the Fed's rate hikes.
        There were also notable declines in information, leisure and
    hospitality as well as healthcare and social assistance.
        Despite the strong demand for labor, workers are growing less
    confident, leading to fewer resignations. The quits rate, viewed as a
    measure of labor market confidence, fell to 2.4% from 2.5% in March.
        That aligns with a Conference Board \4\ survey on Tuesday that
    showed the share of people viewing jobs as ``plentiful'' dropped in May
    to the lowest level since April 2021.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/us-consumer-confidence-dips-
    may-survey-2023-05-30/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Resignations declined in the professional and business services,
    healthcare and social assistance categories as well as in durable goods
    manufacturing. They dropped in the Northeast and South. There were
    modest increases in the West and Midwest.
        ``This suggests that the labor market is slackening, despite the
    reported increase in job openings, and that workers are increasingly
    sheltering in place in their jobs as better alternatives become less
    available,'' said Julia Pollak, chief economist at ZipRecruiter.

              Reporting by Lucia Mutikani; Editing by Andrea Ricci and Paul
            Simao.
                                   Article 6

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/michigan-catches-4m-of-food-
    stamp-fraud-mum-on-fraud-scope]
    Michigan catches $4M of food stamp fraud; mum on fraud scope
    By Scott McClallen\1\D The Center Square
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/michigan-catches-4m-of-
    food-stamp-fraud-mum-on-fraud-scope

    June 03, 2023 08:45 a.m.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              Editor's note: the above video is retained in Committee file.

        (The Center Square)--Standing in the checkout lines or in virtual
    lines at Sam's Clubs in metro Detroit, criminals are spending
    government benefits stolen from people more than 2,000 miles away in
    California.
        On May 24, three people--Travis Newby, 39, of Detroit, Derriun
    Williams, 23, of Detroit, and Vanessa Williams, 47, of Highland Park--
    were arrested and arraigned on felony charges.
        The three are charged in connection to $4 million of interstate
    food stamp fraud wherein they allegedly obtained electronic benefit
    card data from 8,000 cardholders mostly residing in California.
        The trio allegedly reproduced EBT cards in Michigan and then spent
    funds on fraudulent purchases from metro Detroit Sam's Club stores.
        The amount of SNAP fraud known by Michigan is unclear. The Center
    Square's record request seeking that number from The Michigan
    Department of Health and Human Services has been pending for 2 months.
    That request was approved but hasn't been fulfilled as of Wednesday,
    May 31.
        The state health department plans to fight SNAP fraud by blocking
    common PINS, restricting card functionality in high-fraud areas, and
    giving more access to a fraud interface system, according to documents
    obtained through the Freedom of Information Act.
        MDHHS submitted a plan to reduce SNAP fraud to the United States
    Department of Agriculture's Food and Nutrition Services, which doesn't
    appear to be approved yet.
        Haywood Talcove, the CEO of LexisNexis Risk Solutions' Government
    Group, which provides fraud prevention tools to 26 state unemployment
    programs and the 50 top U.S. banks, told The Center Square that state
    government should take additional steps to prevent fraud.
        ``The needed resources to investigate each of these claims is
    significant, it goes well beyond a signature and requires access to
    third-party tools, law enforcement databases, etc.,'' Talcove wrote in
    an email. ``These investigations many of which will center around
    criminal groups need to be conducted by trained law enforcement
    personal with arrest authority.''
        Talcove recommended Michigan eliminate SNAP card functionality
    outside of the state. He suggested state government file police reports
    to help investigators crack organized criminal groups.
        ``Their report is like moving deck chairs around the Titanic--it
    does nothing to prevent fraud, it does nothing help the food-insecure
    whose benefits are stolen and it hasn't even been approved by USDA,''
    Talcove wrote in an email.
        The Federal Government must approve Michigan's plan before the
    state can enact solutions to save taxpayer money.
        For example, Ohio submitted its plan to reduce SNAP fraud in late
    February. USDA didn't approve the plan until May, which will be enacted
    in late July, according to documents obtained by The Center Square.
        Michigan's plan included restricting EBT usage in areas of high
    fraud, which Talcove said does nothing to stop identity fraudsters from
    stealing SNAP benefits from vulnerable citizens.
        ``Worse, it only creates a barrier to access for legitimate SNAP
    recipients, especially those living in `high fraud' areas,'' Talcove
    wrote. ``Worse yet, this policy can disproportionately impact
    minorities. This goes against common sense administration.''
        Nessel says more arrests are expected as Michigan works with seven
    other retailers to investigate millions of dollars of taxpayer fraud.
                                   Article 7

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    [https://www.wsj.com/articles/house-republicans-welfare-work-
    requirements-debt-ceiling-negotiations-pete-aguilar-democrats-1ebc862d]
    The GOP Can Win on Work Requirements and Welfare
              The details show how reasonable the House debt-ceiling
            proposals are.

    By The Editorial Board \1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ https://www.wsj.com/news/author/editorial-board.

    Updated May 17, 2023 7:00 p.m. ET

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              Photo: Will Oliver/EPA/Shutterstock.

        House Republicans are holding firm as they negotiate a deal with
    President Biden to raise the debt ceiling--a small miracle for the
    GOP--and one sticking point is work requirements in welfare. Democrats
    are digging in, calling the rules this week a ``nonstarter,'' but the
    attacks are false, and the GOP has the high ground on the merits and
    the politics.
        The House GOP's Limit, Save, Grow Act that passed this spring
    stiffens work requirements in programs such as food stamps and
    Medicaid. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program currently
    stipulates 20 hours per week of work or training for able-bodied adults
    under age 50 without children. Those who don't comply can only receive
    benefits for 3 months out of every 36.
        House Republicans want to raise the age requirement to 55. The bill
    would also crack down on states that water down the requirements with
    exemptions. Decide for yourself if a part-time work program aimed at
    able-bodied men without children at home constitutes taking ``food out
    of the mouths of kids,'' as House Democrat Pete Aguilar said in a
    Tuesday press conference.
        Then there's the cash benefit Temporary Assistance for Needy
    Families (TANF). As a condition of Federal funding, states are supposed
    to engage at least half of families in some type of work, including
    training or job hunting. But only six states hit the 50% target in
    2021, according to the House Ways and Means Committee,\2\ and 34 had a
    0% effective rate.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ https://waysandmeans.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/
    Restoring-Work-Requirements-in-TANF_one-pager55.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Why? For one, states can claim a ``credit'' against the work target
    if they reduce their caseload relative to the welfare year 2005, and
    most do. Republicans would update the year to 2022 so states can't
    exploit this provision based on antiquated data. What radicals.
        States can also pay away the work requirement by spending more of
    their own money on the program, which the GOP wants to end. Most
    egregious: Some states goose their stats by sending $10 or $20 TANF
    checks to food-stamp recipients who work, and then counting them in
    their calculations. The term for this is scam, and offenders include
    California \3\ and Oregon.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ https://www.aei.org/opportunity-social-mobility/is-president-
    biden-about-to-triangulate-democrats-on-welfare-work-requirements/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The GOP's boldest proposal is to introduce a work requirement in
    Medicaid. This is also not an obligation to hold a full-time job, and
    it doesn't apply to anyone caring for dependent children or an ailing
    relative, or to pregnant women, or to anyone who is in treatment for
    substance abuse, among other exemptions.
        The biggest budget savings from the GOP work proposals would come
    from Medicaid, with the Congressional Budget Office estimating $109
    billion in reduced spending over 10 years. States could still pick up
    the tab for those on Medicaid who refuse to work, and CBO predicts that
    many would.
        President Biden acknowledged on Saturday that he has supported work
    requirements in the past, most notably Bill Clinton's 1996 welfare
    reform. He said Medicaid is ``a different story'' as a healthcare
    program, but then why not agree on food stamps? The next day the
    President's Twitter account claimed the GOP proposal would put a
    million older adults at risk of ``going hungry.'' \4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1658217034075742241.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Republicans didn't extend work requirements to parents, even to
    those with children in school for more than 20 hours a week, and the
    lesson is that such concessions don't stop Democratic attacks. But now
    Republicans can hold firm, and even if Mr. Biden won't agree on
    Medicaid they can bank the incremental wins and build on the progress
    later.
        ``They're coming for the children. They're coming for the poor.
    They're coming for the sick, the elderly and the disabled,'' Democrat
    John Lewis wailed on the House floor in the 1995. He was wrong about
    that 1996 welfare reform, which included a work requirement and has
    been an engine for upward mobility. By one analysis, single-parent
    household poverty fell more than 60% between 1995 and 2016.\5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ https://www.cato.org/research-briefs-economic-policy/change-
    poverty-1995-2016-among-single-parent-families.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Democrats have slowly reversed much of the 1996 reform in recent
    years. This is one reason so many prime-age Americans are now out of
    the labor force, which hurts the economy and social cohesion.
    Republicans can win this debate, if they can explain that welfare
    should be a temporary hand up, not a permanent sinecure in return for
    doing nothing.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              Editor's note: the above video is retained in Committee file.
              Wonder Land: The attorneys general of 19 states have sent a
            letter to JPMorgan Chase, accusing it of discrimination against
            conservative religious groups. The bank denies it. The business
            of America should become business again, not politics. Images:
            Zuma Press/Bloomberg News Composite: Mark Kelly.

              Copyright 2023 Dow Jones & Company,
            Inc. All Rights Reserved.

              Appeared in the May 18, 2023, print edition as 'The GOP Can
            Win on Work and Welfare'.
                                   Article 8

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    [https://www.wsj.com/articles/make-welfare-reform-part-of-the-debt-
    ceiling-deal-mccarthy-biden-1996-98bf6afb]

    Opinion \1\ Upward Mobility \2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ https://www.wsj.com/news/opinion?mod=breadcrumb.
        \2\ https://www.wsj.com/news/types/upward-mobility?mod=breadcrumb.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Make Welfare Reform Part of the Debt-Ceiling Deal
              The Clinton-era law added work requirements, but politicians
            since have chipped away at them.

    By Jason L. Riley \3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ https://www.wsj.com/news/author/jason-l-riley.

    May 23, 2023 6:14 p.m. ET

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              A supermarket displays stickers indicating they accept food
            stamps in West New York, N.J. Photo: Seth Wenig/Associated
            Press.

        Work requirements for healthy welfare recipients make sense to most
    Americans. But in Washington those are fighting words, and they have
    become a welcome point of contention in the debate over raising the
    nation's debt ceiling.
        House Speaker Kevin McCarthy surprised the White House and much of
    the political press last month when he brought together his Republican
    caucus to pass a bill that raises the debt limit. President Biden had
    reasoned that GOP infighting would doom any chance of that happening
    and that Democrats ultimately would be able to lift the debt ceiling
    without significant policy reform. That gambit failed, and now the
    pressure is on the President to compromise on a final deal. Democrats
    performed better than expected in last year's midterm elections, but
    they still lost control of the House.
        Worse for Democrats, the House bill imposes or expands work rules
    for able-bodied people who receive benefits from Federal programs.
    Medicaid recipients without dependents would have to work or volunteer
    for 80 hours a month. States would be limited in their ability to grant
    waivers that bypass work requirements for those on food stamps. Asking
    something of people on the dole is perfectly rational, but liberals in
    Washington have long prioritized making the poor comfortable over
    helping them out of poverty. These days, weaning people off welfare by
    encouraging them to be more productive is an afterthought on the
    political left.
        House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries spoke for many in his party
    when he told CNBC that the proposed work rules are ``entirely
    unreasonable.'' The remark was entirely predictable. In the late 1980s
    and early 1990s, welfare dependence grew by a third as people figured
    out that they could receive more in public benefits than they could
    earn in the labor force. When Bill Clinton joined forces with a
    Republican Congress in 1996 to pass a welfare-reform bill that included
    work mandates, party leaders from Ted Kennedy to Pat Moynihan and Dick
    Gephardt predicted social carnage. Yet by the end of the decade, the
    welfare rolls had fallen by more than 50% nationwide. Poverty rates
    among blacks and female-headed households--groups with
    disproportionately high welfare-use rates--also plunged.
        Since then, lawmakers have chipped away at those reforms, usually
    in the wake of an economic downturn. Under Democratic and Republican
    Administrations, unemployment insurance has been expanded and work
    requirements have been suspended. The public is assured that the
    changes will be temporary, but they seldom are. Most politicians can't
    resist using government largess to win over voters, and it's easy to
    demonize the few who do resist. Nevertheless, this is a good fight for
    Republicans to wage and the right time to wage it. That we have
    millions more jobs available today than we have people looking for work
    is a strong indication that these programs have become too generous.
        The unemployment rate has reached historic lows, and wages have
    been rising, including among historically marginalized groups. A
    headline in Friday's Journal read ``Job Market for Black Workers Is
    Best Ever.'' Black unemployment was a record low 4.7% in April, and the
    number of blacks in the labor force today is some 1.1 million higher
    than it was before the pandemic. ``Black workers have long been at the
    bottom of the ladder in terms of wages and job security,'' the story
    noted. ``But the confluence of strong demand for labor and demographic
    shifts in the country over the past few years, when many older white
    workers retired, benefited Black Americans.'' If now isn't the time to
    rethink qualifications and requirements for public assistance, when is?
        Too many healthy adults are opting out of work because public
    policy has made unemployment too attractive. As Mr. McCarthy has noted,
    Joe Biden \4\ once understood this. As a senator, he was among the
    Democrats who supported the 1996 welfare reform. These days, the White
    House is claiming that work requirements for food stamps would result
    in mass starvation. Given that it's hard to enter a business
    establishment these days without seeing a help-wanted sign, that could
    be a tough sell for Democrats.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ https://www.wsj.com/topics/person/joe-biden.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Republicans say the reforms will help cut costs, and a
    Congressional Budget Office analysis predicted savings of more than
    $100 billion over 10 years. Republican lawmakers might have more
    credibility with voters if they had been equally concerned about
    excessive spending when Donald Trump \5\ was President, but Mr.
    McCarthy is right to assume that most people don't want their tax
    dollars being used by the government to subsidize laziness. I once saw
    a bumper sticker that read ``Work harder: Millions of welfare
    recipients are depending on you.'' So are a lot of liberals in
    Washington.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ https://www.wsj.com/topics/person/donald-trump.

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              Editor's note: the above video is retained in Committee file.
              Wonder Land: A beside-the-point President is the best thing
            that has ever happened to the progressive centralization
            project. But its success in 2024 depends on whether Republicans
            back Trump or not. Images: Warner Bros/Kobal/Shutterstock/AP/
            Zuma Press Composite: Mark Kelly.

              Copyright 2023 Dow Jones & Company,
            Inc. All Rights Reserved.

              Appeared in the May 24, 2023, print edition as 'Make Welfare
            Reform Part of the Debt-Ceiling Deal'.
                                   Article 9

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    [https://www.wsj.com/articles/debt-ceiling-negotiations-food-stamps-
    work-requirements-welfare-foundation-for-government-accountability-
    b04159f0]
    Fixing the Food-Stamp Work Requirement Loopholes
              New evidence shows how states let recipients skirt even part-
            time work.

    By The Editorial Board \1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ https://www.wsj.com/news/author/editorial-board.

    Updated May 24, 2023 6:46 p.m. ET

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              Photo: Daniel Acker/Bloomberg News.

        Work requirements, even minimal ones, are a sticking point in the
    debt-ceiling talks, and it's worth adding a dose of reality to the
    political histrionics.
        The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or food stamps, now
    requires able-bodied adults ages under 50 without dependent children to
    work or train 20 hours a week. Hold a part-time job or benefits expire
    after 3 months. The House GOP debt-ceiling bill would raise the working
    age to all of 55. States can currently exempt a certain number of
    recipients, and the bill would also crack down on carrying these carve-
    outs from year to year.
        Democrats say the current work rules are tough enough, but what
    they don't say is how much regulators have watered down what Congress
    passed in the 1996 welfare reform. Take the waiver process for food
    stamps. States can ask the feds to waive work requirements in areas
    with high unemployment.
        New research \2\ from the Foundation for Government Accountability
    (FGA) shows how states have abused that privilege. Roughly half of
    states are waiving requirements. States rely on antiquated data,
    including figures from [COVID]-19 lockdowns, to claim that it's tough
    to find a job. States also lump disparate geographic areas into a
    single region to drive up jobless figures.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ https://thefga.org/research/waivers-gone-wild-food-stamp-
    loopholes.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        FGA found that, of 800 counties nationwide where work is waived,
    only 20 have unemployment rates above the 10% threshold prescribed by
    the waiver process. FGA says there are four million able-bodied adults
    without dependents on food stamps, and three in four don't work at all.
    Less than 3% work full-time.
        The GOP's bill also imposes work requirements on Medicaid, which
    would account for $109 billion of the $120 billion in savings from the
    GOP work provisions, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The
    savings are so large because the health entitlement covers so many
    prime-age men out of the labor force. If Democrats can't abide work in
    return for free healthcare, they should at least be willing to fix the
    work loopholes in food stamps.
        President Biden in 1996 said the U.S. needs a ``culture of self-
    sufficiency and personal responsibility.'' Time for that guy to make an
    appearance and cut a debt-ceiling deal.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              Editor's note: the above video is retained in Committee file.
              Wonder Land: A beside-the-point President is the best thing
            that has ever happened to the progressive centralization
            project. But its success in 2024 depends on whether Republicans
            back Trump or not. Images: Warner Bros/Kobal/Shutterstock/AP/
            Zuma Press Composite: Mark Kelly.

              Copyright 2023 Dow Jones & Company,
            Inc. All Rights Reserved.

              Appeared in the May 25, 2023, print edition as 'Fixing the
            Food-Stamp Work Loopholes'.
                                   Article 10

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    [https://www.wsj.com/articles/debt-ceiling-deal-work-requirements-
    welfare-gop-kevin-mccarthy-2dcd6029]
    The GOP's Progress on Work and Welfare
              The debt-ceiling deal is a step toward restoring a culture of
            work.

    By The Editorial Board \1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ https://www.wsj.com/news/author/editorial-board.

    May 30, 2023 6:42 p.m. ET

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              President Joe Biden shakes hands with House Speaker Kevin
            McCarthy on Feb. 7. Photo: Pool/Via Reuters.

        Some Republicans aren't enthused about the debt-ceiling deal that
    Speaker Kevin McCarthy brokered with President Biden--not enough
    spending cuts, too few policy concessions. But one reason the deal is
    worth passing: The provisions on work and welfare are incremental
    progress the GOP can build on.
        The Fiscal Responsibility Act makes several changes to social
    safety net programs, notably food stamps. The Supplemental Nutrition
    Assistance Program imposes a 3 month limit on able-bodied adults under
    age 50 without dependent children--unless they work or train 20 hours a
    week.
        That rule was suspended during the interminable [COVID] emergency,
    and spending on the program exploded to $114 billion in 2021 from $60
    billion in 2019. Of four million Americans on food stamps ages 18 to 60
    without a disability or children at home, fewer than 30% are in a
    household with earnings. The House bill would raise the working age to
    54.
        States can exempt 12% of their rolls from the requirement, which
    the House bill reduces to 8%. The bill also cracks down on stockpiling
    these exemptions year to year. Yet another way states water down the
    requirements: states can apply to suspend the rules in areas where jobs
    are hard to find, and they have gerrymandered regions to goose
    unemployment data.
        Arizona has a statewide waiver even as the state has about 1.5 open
    jobs for every person looking. Minnesota relied on data as old as
    September 2020 to justify its request, according to the Foundation for
    Government Accountability.\2\ The House bill forces the Agriculture
    Department to publish state waiver requests and data, and the hope is
    that such scrutiny can shame states into better behavior.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ https://thefga.org/research/waivers-gone-wild/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The changes are similarly sensible in cash assistance known as
    Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). States are supposed to
    have 50% of families working. Yet states can claim a ``credit'' if they
    reduce their cases compared with 2005. The House bill updates that
    baseline year to 2015.
        The House bill also slays an embarrassment known as the ``small
    checks scheme.'' To meet the TANF work requirement, states could find
    food-stamp beneficiaries who are working and mail them a $10 or $20
    check. Voila! Another person is classified as working under TANF.
        One mistake in the debt deal is that the food-stamp work
    requirement exempts veterans and the homeless. These Americans could
    perhaps most benefit from the dignity and stability of work. Ditto for
    parents of children attending school, whom Republicans exempted in
    their initial proposal. Some of the food-stamp provisions expire in
    2030.
        Still, the GOP has won improvements, and making the food-stamp work
    rules permanent can be a priority for the farm bill this year.
    Republicans could also flesh out their proposal to require work in
    Medicaid, which Democrats refused to allow.
        The left has managed over many years to water down the 1996
    bipartisan welfare reform, so small improvements matter. The House bill
    emphasizes that one purpose of food stamps is to help Americans find
    jobs and boost their earnings. That will reinforce local administrators
    trying to make welfare programs more than a check-writing exercise.
        A major difference between the two political parties these days is
    that most Democrats favor a culture of dependency. The GOP's task,
    which is popular with voters, is to rebuild a culture of work. The
    debt-ceiling bill starts to do that, which is one reason to support it.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              Editor's note: the above video is retained in Committee file.
              Journal Editorial Report: Can anyone cut into Trump's big
            polling lead? Images: AP/Reuters Composite: Mark Kelly.

              Copyright 2023 Dow Jones & Company,
            Inc. All Rights Reserved.

              Appeared in the May 31, 2023, print edition as 'The GOP's
            Progress on Work and Welfare'.
                                   Article 11

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    [https://www.wsj.com/articles/lost-lessons-of-the-1996-welfare-reform-
    robert-doar-aei-work-requirements-snap-food-stamps-medicare-5bdd598e]

    Opinion \1\ The Weekend Interview \2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ https://www.wsj.com/news/opinion?mod=breadcrumb.
        \2\ https://www.wsj.com/news/types/the-saturday-
    interview?mod=breadcrumb.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Work Requirements and the Lost Lessons of 1996
              The left fought to stop welfare reform and failed. Now they
            want us to forget the law's success. But Robert Doar remembers.

    By Kate Bachelder Odell \3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ https://www.wsj.com/news/author/kate-bachelder-odell.

    June 2, 2023 6:16 p.m. ET

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              Editor's note: the above video is retained in Committee file.
              Wonder Land: The country is drifting right and opposition
            conservatives better not miss the turn. Images: AP/AFP/Getty
            Images/Zuma Press Composite: Mark Kelly. Washington.

        No sooner did House Republicans and President Biden reach a debt-
    ceiling deal than the histrionics began. One magazine writer accused
    lawmakers of ``selling out some of America's poorest and most
    vulnerable families.'' She was referring to the bill's provision that
    will require some Americans to work in exchange for welfare benefits.
    Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D., Mass.), said the bill \4\ ``takes food away
    from hungry people.''
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ https://twitter.com/RepPressley/status/1664087239515668480.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The rhetoric is familiar. Opponents of the 1996 Personal
    Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act raised similar alarms, but that
    bill passed with bipartisan support, Bill Clinton signed it, and for a
    time nearly everybody recognized it as a success. But the Democratic
    Party has moved to the left and forgotten the policy lessons of welfare
    reform.
        Robert Doar remembers. Mr. Doar, 62, is President of the American
    Enterprise Institute, but earlier in his career he ran safety-net
    programs in New York, with stints in both state and city offices. He
    spent 7 years running social services for Mayor Michael Bloomberg,
    overseeing everything from cash benefits and Medicaid to food stamps.
    Mr. Doar is unequivocal: Work matters, and when paired with public
    assistance it's a powerful ``path out of poverty,'' a phrase he deploys
    more than once in our conversation at his Washington office.
        In New York City, around the time of welfare reform in 1996, Mr.
    Doar says, ``the number of men, women and children on cash welfare was
    1.1 million, in a city of less than eight million.'' Yet ``over a long
    period of time, in multiple Administrations,'' that figure plummeted to
    about 360,000, even as the city's population grew. How? By ``applying a
    consistent policy focused on work.''
        New York ``transformed a system that was entirely focused on
    signing people up for benefits and enrolling them, and helping them
    become dependent on government aid and not work, to a system that
    wanted to help them get into work.'' Offices called ``income
    maintenance centers'' were recast as ``job centers,'' and ``eligibility
    workers'' restyled as ``job opportunity specialists.''
        ``We sent notices to people who didn't comply with certain
    requirements that their benefits were at risk, and they complied by
    going to work,'' Mr. Doar says. This wasn't a harsh order to report to
    the salt mines. Government provided daycare for families with preschool
    children.
        ``The labor-force participation rate in New York City and around
    the country went from roughly 50% or less for never-married single
    mothers to roughly 65% or 70%,'' Mr. Doar says. ``That is enormous
    change in behavior. That was good. It gave them the dignity of work. It
    gave them structure and a schedule. It gave them earnings.''
        Some of his AEI colleagues have found in research that, since the
    1996 welfare reform, poverty in single-parent households has dropped by
    more than 60%.\5\ Yet the ``focus on work has been eroded,'' Mr. Doar
    says. The current debate in Washington doesn't even involve parents,
    notwithstanding the evidence that they and their children are better
    off when someone in the house is working.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ https://www.cato.org/research-briefs-economic-policy/change-
    poverty-1995-2016-among-single-parent-families.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Take food stamps, whose work rules were adjusted by Congress's
    debt-ceiling bill. In theory, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
    Program already requires adults without kids at home to work or train
    for 20 hours a week: Hold down a part-time job or benefits expire in 3
    months. It doesn't apply to those with disabilities, among other
    exemptions.
        Yet these requirements are nonexistent in practice. States can
    exempt a percentage of beneficiaries right off the bat. They can then
    apply for waivers based on dubious data suggesting that jobs are hard
    to find--and these waivers are in effect even as a labor shortage
    leaves employers desperate for more workers. ``Look at the history of
    the Great Depression,'' Mr. Doar says. ``People were out of work, and
    the solution was jobs. And now we have jobs available, and people
    aren't taking them, but we're giving people assistance. And I think
    that makes Americans uncomfortable.''
        States have little incentive to behave differently. SNAP ``is 100%
    Federal money,'' Mr. Doar notes. States are enrolling residents,
    ``sucking down the Federal money'' and funneling it to local grocery
    stores. ``The problem with that is that you're not serving well the
    low-income population in your community.''
        One rejoinder from the left is that those on food stamps are
    working. ``Many, many people do have earnings and receive these
    benefits,'' Mr. Doar acknowledges. But then why fight a requirement?
    ``Whenever anybody says, `These individuals you're trying to impose
    this work requirement on--they're working two jobs,' I want to say,
    `Well, if they're working two jobs, then they're not going to be
    affected by these changes.' ''
        Some Americans on food stamps report ``no earnings--zero,'' Mr.
    Doar says, forming a circle with his index finger and thumb. AEI
    research published last month \6\ looked at able-bodied adults 18 to 49
    without children at home. Only about \1/4\ worked while receiving food
    stamps, and the low figure couldn't be explained away by caring for
    relatives or other such obligations.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Promoting-
    Mobility-Through-SNAP.pdf
    ?x91208.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        ``We should ask what's going on, and let's address it,'' Mr. Doar
    says. ``It's not one program. It's a combination of programs.'' More
    Americans, particularly prime working-age men, are cobbling together
    benefits from a constellation of benefits--from food stamps and housing
    subsidies to Medicaid and disability.
        The debt deal's provisions are modest. The bill Congress passed
    this week would raise the maximum age at which the food-stamp work
    requirement applies to 54 from 49. Some Republicans were disappointed
    the bill didn't go further and revolted when the Congressional Budget
    Office said the work requirements wouldn't save money. Mr. Doar argues
    that work requirements aren't about ``savings'' anyway, but ``helping
    people get to a healthier, stronger, more positive life'' even if they
    still need government benefits while they work.
        But the reason for the bad CBO score is new carve-outs from work
    for veterans and the homeless. ``That was a mistake,'' Mr. Doar says.
    The homeless can benefit from the stability and dignity of work.
    ``People on the street who you see--and your heart goes out to them--
    they are recipients of public assistance,'' often in programs that
    don't require work. Programs such as disability aid have ``financed
    their situation without actually helping them.'' As for veterans, they
    are often caricatured as traumatized or incapacitated--a stereotype
    perpetrated by endless movies about deranged Vietnam vets. Most
    veterans are more capable, not less, for their years in uniform.
        Yet while Mr. Doar says the new work requirements aren't
    ``transformative,'' he points out a sleeper provision that hasn't
    attracted much attention. The bill enshrines helping low-income
    Americans find employment and increasing their earnings as a purpose of
    food stamps, an update to the program's ``mission statement'' that will
    let reform-minded states focus more on work. He suggests the Federal
    Government could offer bonuses to states that boost their work-
    participation rates--a ripe idea for Republicans, who can build on
    their incremental progress in negotiations over the farm bill this
    year.
        Even the bill's limited work provisions were a tough sell for
    President Biden, although he voted for welfare reform as a senator in
    1996. The bipartisan consensus on work has devolved into ``truly a
    party divide,'' Mr. Doar says. Democrats largely view welfare programs
    as universal entitlements. One example is the brawl over the child tax
    credit, which Democrats temporarily transformed into a cash allowance
    as part of the [COVID]-19 emergency. Democrats aspired to make that
    change permanent, ``sneaking through a real retrenchment'' against the
    1996 welfare reform, Mr. Doar says.
        The argument on the left is that work requirements merely punish
    children for the failures of their parents. Better to deposit cash
    every month. Yet unconditional money can leave children stuck in
    suffering far beyond what a check can heal--such as a parent with
    untreated mental illness or addiction. ``Sending a check from
    Washington with no human connection'' allows struggling families ``to
    remain in the shadows,'' Mr. Doar says, or in ``houses with the
    curtains drawn.'' On this issue, West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin was
    ``the only real ally'' among Democrats. His opposition helped scuttle a
    permanent cash allowance for parents.
        Mr. Doar's view is popular with the public. A May opinion poll \7\
    showed roughly \2/3\ of Americans, including \1/2\ of Democrats,
    support work requirements on food stamps and Medicaid. That support
    holds in other surveys across income and racial demographics. In April
    an advisory ballot referendum asked Wisconsin voters whether they
    support work requirements on welfare. It won with nearly 80% of the
    vote. And Mr. Doar notes that in the 2020 primaries, Mr. Biden
    ``handily'' outperformed Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren among
    black voters. He says one reason may be those senators' ``welfare
    entitlement perspective.''
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ https://www.axios.com/2023/05/18/axios-ipsos-poll-work-
    requirements-medicaid-snap.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        One Republican seizing this political high ground is Sen. Tim
    Scott. ``If you're able-bodied, you work,'' Mr. Scott promised in his
    2024 Presidential campaign announcement, crediting his mother for
    offering an example of hard work. But Republicans are sometimes cowed
    by the accusations that they're heartless.
        Mr. Doar suggests that the progressive resistance to work reflects
    a dim view of low-income Americans: ``They're saying that those seeking
    assistance aren't capable of working, aren't capable of stepping up and
    fulfilling some form of responsibility and moving toward self-
    sufficiency. And what we found in welfare reform is--actually, they are
    capable. And when you ask these families to make some commitment to
    employment,'' then ``they'll do it. And they can do it.''
        Republicans can also explain to voters that these rules aim to fix
    a broken bureaucracy--to put pressure ``on the agency to make a better
    and more concerted effort to help someone get a job,'' he says. Those
    receiving benefits are responding to bad incentives in government. ``If
    the message is, `Don't worry about it. Here's your card. See you in a
    year,' they'll take the card, and you won't see them for a year, and
    you won't have really helped them.''
        One important misconception is that poverty is uniquely awful in
    America compared with, say, Europe. Such comparisons tend to ``isolate
    one program'' or fail to count a bevy of refundable tax credit for low-
    income Americans.
        ``The sad part of the popular impression is that the official
    poverty measure doesn't count all the benefits we provide,'' Mr. Doar
    says. A 2019 paper by economist Bruce Meyer of AEI and the University
    of Chicago and James Sullivan of Notre Dame found that taking better
    account of benefits and increased consumption power reduced poverty \8\
    from the official rate of about 12%--barely changed since the 1970s--to
    less than 3%.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ https://www.aei.org/research-products/speech/poverty-in-
    america-before-and-after-covid-19/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        ``I think we really are''--Mr. Doar searches for the right word--
    ``plagued by this failure to recognize that we have made progress on
    these issues, and that we are a good and generous country to people who
    struggle.''
        That hesitancy to acknowledge success crosses partisan and
    ideological lines. On parts of the left, ``they think if we say we've
    made great progress on reducing poverty, which we have, then we won't
    be able to justify further investments. We have to paint a dark, bad
    picture because that's what justifies more spending.'' For some on the
    right, declaring success ``would mean that government actually could do
    something well over time.''

              Mrs. Odell is a member of the Journal's editorial board.
                                     ______

           Submitted Federal Register Rule by Hon. Glenn Thompson, a
                  Representative in Congress from Pennsylvania
    [https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-12-16/pdf/2015-31532.pdf]
    Federal Register
    Vol. 80, No. 241, Wednesday, December 16, 2015, 78119-78130
    Rules and Regulations
    Department of Agriculture
    Commodity Credit Corporation
    7 CFR Part 1400

    RIN 0560-AI31
    Payment Limitation and Payment Eligibility; Actively Engaged in Farming
        Agency: Commodity Credit Corporation, USDA.
        Action: Final rule.
        Summary: This rule changes the requirements for a person to be
    considered actively engaged in farming for the purpose of payment
    eligibility for certain Farm Service Agency (FSA) and Commodity Credit
    Corporation (CCC) programs. Specifically, this rule amends and
    clarifies the requirements for a significant contribution of active
    personal management to a farming operation. These changes are required
    by the Agricultural Act of 2014 (the 2014 Farm Bill). The provisions of
    this rule do not apply to persons or entities comprised entirely of
    family members. The rule does not change the existing regulations as
    they relate to contributions of land, capital, equipment, or labor, or
    the existing regulations related to landowners with a risk in the crop
    or to spouses. This rule will apply to eligibility for payments earned
    for the 2016 crop or program year for farming operations with only 2016
    spring planted crops, and to eligibility for payments for the 2017 and
    subsequent crop or program years for all farming operations (those with
    either spring or fall planted crops).
        Dates: This rule is effective December 16, 2015.
        For Further Information Contact: James Baxa; Telephone: (202) 720-
    7641. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for
    communication should contact the USDA Target Center at (202) 720-2600
    (voice).
        Supplementary Information:
    Overview
        CCC programs managed by FSA, specifically the Market Loan Gains
    (MLG) and Loan Deficiency Payments (LDP) associated with the Marketing
    Assistance Loan (MAL) Program, the Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC)
    Program, and the Price Loss Coverage (PLC) Program, require that a
    person or legal entity be ``actively engaged in farming'' as a
    condition of eligibility for payments. As specified in 7 CFR part 1400,
    a person or legal entity must contribute: (1) Land, capital, or
    equipment; and (2) active personal labor, active personal management,
    or a combination of active personal labor and active personal
    management to be considered ``actively engaged in farming'' for the
    purposes of payment eligibility.
        Section 1604 of the 2014 Farm Bill (Pub. L. 113-79) requires the
    Secretary of Agriculture to define in regulations what constitutes a
    ``significant contribution of active personal management'' for the
    purpose of payment eligibility. CCC published a proposed rule in the
    Federal Register on March 26, 2015, (80 FR 15916-15921) to implement
    the changes required by the 2014 Farm Bill. CCC received 95 comments on
    the proposed rule. The comments and responses are discussed later in
    this document. No major changes are being made in response to comments,
    because FSA has determined that the comments support the definitions
    and requirements for ``actively engaged in farming'' specified in the
    proposed rule and support limiting eligibility for farm payments. Also,
    there was no consensus amongst the comments for any alternative payment
    eligibility provisions that would address the 2014 Farm Bill
    requirements. FSA has made minor changes from the proposed rule in this
    final rule to respond to commenters' requests for clarifications of
    certain provisions.
        As specified in the proposed rule, this final rule amends 7 CFR
    part 1400 to define what constitutes a significant contribution of
    active personal management and to revise the requirements for active
    personal management contributions. The 2014 Farm Bill also directed the
    Secretary to consider the establishment of limits on the number of
    persons per farming operation who may be considered actively engaged in
    farming based on a significant contribution of active personal
    management. Based on this directive, a limit was established in the
    proposed rule and this final rule therefore amends 7 CFR part 1400 to
    set a limit on the number of persons per farming operation who may
    qualify as actively engaged in farming based on a significant
    contribution of active personal management, or a combination of active
    personal management and active personal labor. The new requirements and
    definitions are specified in a new subpart G to 7 CFR part 1400.
    Exceptions for Entities Comprised Solely of Family Members
        As required by the 2014 Farm Bill, the provisions of this rule do
    not apply to farming operations comprised solely of family members.
    This rule does not revise the definition of ``family member.'' As
    specified in 7 CFR 1400.3, a family member is ``a person to whom
    another member in the farming operation is related as a lineal
    ancestor, lineal descendant, sibling, spouse, or otherwise by
    marriage.'' This definition is consistent with 7 U.S.C. 1308, which is
    the authority for the definition. FSA handbooks further clarify that
    eligible family members include: Great grandparent, grandparent,
    parent, child, including legally adopted children and stepchildren,
    grandchild, great grandchild, or a spouse or sibling of family members.
        In 7 CFR 1400.208, there are existing provisions for family members
    to be considered actively engaged in farming by making a significant
    contribution of active personal labor, or active personal management,
    or a combination thereof, to a farming operation comprised of a
    majority of family members, without making a contribution of land,
    equipment, or capital. The new subpart G does not change these
    provisions.
    Existing Provisions and Exceptions for Actively Engaged Requirements
            That Are Not Changed
        As specified in the current regulations, there are exceptions to
    the requirement that a person must contribute labor or management to be
    considered actively engaged in farming. These exceptions for certain
    landowners and for spouses are not changed with this rule.
    Specifically, a person or legal entity that is a landowner who makes a
    significant contribution of owned land to the farming operation and
    receives rent or income for such use of the land based on the land's
    production or the operation's operating results, and who therefore
    shares a financial risk in the crop (profit or loss is based on value
    of crop and not from a fixed rent amount) is considered to be actively
    engaged. A landowner who meets that requirement of sharing financial
    risk in the crop is not required to contribute labor or management to
    be considered actively engaged in farming. If one spouse, or an estate
    of a deceased spouse, is considered to be actively engaged in farming
    the other spouse is considered to be actively engaged without making a
    separate, additional contribution of management or labor. The spouse
    exemption as specified in the current regulations applies regardless of
    whether the other spouse has qualified as actively engaged through a
    contribution of management or labor or as a landowner sharing risk in
    the crop.
        The final rule specifies how persons and legal entities comprised
    of non-family members may be determined eligible for payments, based on
    a contribution of active personal management made by persons with a
    direct or indirect interest in the farming operation. Payments made to
    persons or legal entities are attributed to persons as specified in 7
    CFR 1400.105 and the methods for attribution remain unchanged with this
    rule.
    Additional Requirements for Certain Nonfamily General Partnerships and
            Joint Ventures
        The revised definition of what constitutes a significant
    contribution of active personal management in this rule apply only to
    certain nonfamily farming operations seeking to have more than one
    person qualify as actively engaged in farming by providing a
    significant contribution of active personal management. Such person is
    referred to as a ``farm manager'' for the purposes of this rule. This
    rule only applies to farming operations structured as general
    partnerships or joint ventures that seek to qualify more than one farm
    manager. The existing requirements that farming operations supply
    information to FSA county committees (COC) on each member's
    contribution or expected contribution of labor or management related to
    actively engaged determinations remain unchanged and continue to apply.
    However, each of the members of farming operations subject to this
    final rule that are determined to be actively engaged in farming by
    their contribution of active personal management, or the contribution
    of the combination of active personal labor and active personal
    management, will also be required to keep and provide a management log.
        For most farming operations that are legal entities, such as
    corporations and limited liability companies, adding an additional
    member to the entity does not affect the number of payment limits
    available; it simply increases the number of members that can share a
    single $125,000 payment limit, should such a limit be reached. But for
    general partnerships and joint ventures, adding another member to the
    operation can provide the availability of an additional $125,000
    payment limit if the new member meets the other eligibility
    requirements, including being determined as actively engaged in
    farming. This potential for a farming operation being able to qualify
    for multiple payment limits provides an opportunity to add members and
    to have those members claim actively engaged in farming status, each
    with an additional and separate payment limitation, especially for
    farming operations earning annual program payments in an amount close
    to or in excess of the payment limitation.
        For this reason, several additional requirements now apply to
    nonfamily farming operations seeking to qualify more than one farm
    manager. Specifically, in addition to the existing requirements that
    farming operations must provide information to FSA on how each of their
    members qualify as actively engaged based on a contribution of labor,
    management, land, capital, and equipment, a limit is placed on the
    number of members of a farming operation that can be qualified as a
    farm manager. Also, an additional recordkeeping requirement now applies
    for each member of such farming operations contributing any active
    personal management. These additional requirements also apply to
    individuals requesting to qualify with a combination of labor and
    management if their farming operation is seeking to have more than one
    farm manager (combinations of labor and management can qualify as
    actively engaged in farming).
    Number of Farm Managers That May Qualify As Actively Engaged
        This rule restricts the number of farm managers to one person per
    farming operation, with exceptions. Nonfamily farming operations
    seeking only one member to qualify as actively engaged in farming with
    only a significant contribution of management or a combination of labor
    and management (one farm manager) are not subject to the new
    requirements of 7 CFR part 1400 subpart G. They are still, however,
    subject to the existing requirements of being actively engaged, as they
    were prior to this rule. In other words, such operations will continue
    to be subject to the existing regulations in subparts A and C of 7 CFR
    part 1400 that specify the requirements to be considered actively
    engaged in farming.
        Any farming operation seeking two or three farm managers must meet
    the requirements of subpart G for all farm managers in the farming
    operation, including documenting that each of the two (or three)
    individuals are actively engaged in farming by their contribution of
    active personal management (or a combination of labor and management)
    by the maintenance of the records or logs discussed below for all the
    members in the farming operation. If one person of the farming
    operation meets the requirements for being actively engaged in farming
    by making a contribution of active personal management, and that
    farming operation seeks to qualify an additional farm manager, the
    farming operation must meet the requirements that it is a large
    operation or a complex operation as specified in this rule. To qualify
    a total of three farm managers, the operation is required to meet the
    requirements specified in this rule for both size and complexity. In
    other words, a very large farm operation that is not complex (for
    example, one growing a single crop) may only qualify for two farm
    managers, not three. Under no circumstances is a farming operation
    allowed to qualify more than a total of three persons as farm managers.
        The default standard for what constitutes a large farming operation
    is an operation with crops on more than 2,500 acres (planted or
    prevented planted) or honey or wool with more than 10,000 hives or
    3,500 ewes, respectively. The acreage standard is based on an analysis
    of responses to the Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS)
    conducted by the USDA Economic Research Service and National
    Agricultural Statistics Service. The results of that survey indicate
    that on average, farms producing eligible commodities that required
    more than one full time manager equivalent (2,040 hours of management)
    had a size of 2,527 acres. (See http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/
    arms-farm-financial-and-crop-production-practices.
    aspx for more information on the survey.) The size standards for honey
    and wool did not have comparable survey information available. The
    honey standard for the number of hives is based on the beekeepers
    participating in 2011 through 2012 Emergency Assistance for Livestock,
    Honey Bees, and Farm-Raised Fish that met or exceeded the payment
    limit. These large operations averaged 10,323 hives. The standard
    established for sheep was based on industry analysis that showed that
    operations with 1,500 through 2,000 ewes could be full time. The 3,500
    ewes standard is approximately double that threshold. Each State FSA
    committee (STC) has authority to modify these size standards for their
    state based on the STC's determination of the relative size of farming
    operations in the state by up to 15 percent (that is plus or minus 375
    acres, 1,500 hives, or 525 ewes). In other words, the standard in a
    particular state may range from 2,125 acres to 2,875 acres; 8,500 to
    11,500 hives; or 2,975 to 4,025 ewes. Any deviation from the state
    level standards may only be granted on a case by case basis by the FSA
    Deputy Administrator for Farm Programs (DAFP).
        If a farming operation seeks an additional farm manager based on
    the complexity of the operation, such operation must make a request to
    the FSA state committee that demonstrates complexity by addressing the
    factors established in this rule. The complexity factors specified in
    this rule take into account the diversity of the operation including
    the number of agricultural commodities produced; whether irrigation is
    used; the types of agricultural crops produced such as field,
    vegetable, or orchard crops; the geographical area in which an
    operation farms and produces agricultural commodities; alternative
    marketing channels (that is, fresh, wholesale, farmers market, or
    organic); and other aspects about the farming operation such as the
    production of livestock, types of livestock, and the various livestock
    products produced and marketed annually. The addition of a second or
    third farm manager to be considered actively engaged in farming must be
    approved by the STC, and is subject to review by DAFP. The final review
    and concurrence by DAFP is intended to ensure consistency and fairness
    on a national level.
    Records on the Performance of Management Activities
        As specified in this final rule, if a farming operation seeks to
    qualify more than one farm manager as actively engaged in farming, then
    all persons that provide any management to the farming operation are
    required to maintain contemporaneous records or activity logs of their
    management activities, including the management activities that may not
    qualify as active personal management under this rule. Specifically,
    activity logs must include information about the hours of management
    performed for the farming operation. While the recordkeeping
    requirements under this rule are similar to the current provisions at 7
    CFR 1400.203 and 1400.204 in which contributions must be identifiable
    and documentable, and separate and distinct from the contributions of
    other members, these additional records or logs must also include the
    location of where the management activity was performed (either on-site
    or remote) and the time expended or duration of the management activity
    performed. These records and logs must be made available if requested
    by the appropriate FSA reviewing authority. If a person or member
    initially determined as actively engaged in farming by a represented
    contribution of active personal management to the farming operation
    fails to provide these management activity records within a reasonable
    amount on time, usually 30 days, the represented contribution of active
    personal management will be disregarded and the person's eligibility
    for payments will be re-determined.
        Section 1604 of the farm bill requires USDA to ensure that any
    additional paperwork required by this rule be limited only to persons
    in farming operations who would be subject to this rule. As described
    above, the additional recording and recordkeeping requirements of this
    rule only apply to persons in farming operations that seek to qualify
    more than one farm manager as actively engaged in farming.
    New Definition of Significant Contribution of Active Personal
            Management
        The existing definition of a ``significant contribution'' in 7 CFR
    1400.3 specifies that for active personal management, a significant
    contribution includes ``activities that are critical to the
    profitability of the farming operation,'' but that definition does not
    specify what specific types of activities are included, whether these
    activities need to be direct actions and not passive activities, and to
    what level or quantity such activities must be performed to achieve a
    level of significance.
        This final rule specifies a new definition of ``significant
    contribution of active personal management'' that applies only to non-
    family farming operations that seek to qualify more than one person as
    a farm manager. Similar to the existing requirements in 7 CFR 1400.3
    for a substantial amount of active personal labor, the new definition
    for a significant contribution of active personal management requires
    an annual contribution of 500 hours of management, or at least 25
    percent of the total management required for that operation. This final
    rule also adds a new, more specific definition for ``active personal
    management'' that includes a list of critical management activities
    that qualify as a significant contribution if such activities are
    annually performed to either of the minimum levels established (500
    hours or 25 percent of the total management hours required for the
    operation on an annual basis).
        The new definition changes what constitutes ``active personal
    management'' only for farm managers in nonfamily farming operations
    seeking to qualify two or three farm managers. The requirements for
    such farm managers clarify that eligible management activities are
    critical actions performed under one or more of the following
    categories:

       Capital, land, and safety-net programs: Arrange financing,
            manage capital, acquire equipment, negotiate land acquisition
            and leases, and manage insurance or USDA program participation;

       Labor: Hire and manage labor; and

       Agronomics and Marketing: Decide which crop(s) to plant,
            purchase inputs, manage crops, price crops, and market crops or
            futures.

        The management activities described place emphasis on actions taken
    or performed by the person directly for the benefit and success of the
    farming operation. Passive management activities such as attendance of
    board meetings or conference calls, or watching commodity markets or
    input markets (without making trades), are not considered as making a
    significant contribution of active personal management. Only critical
    actions as specified in the new definition of ``active personal
    management'' are counted towards the required hourly threshold for a
    significant contribution of active personal management.
        As required by the 2014 Farm Bill, the new definition and
    requirements in the final rule take into account the size and
    complexity of farming operations across all parts of the country. The
    final rule also takes into consideration all of the actions of the
    farming operation associated with the financing; crop selection and
    planting decisions; land acquisitions and retention of the land assets
    for an extended period of time; risk management and crop insurance
    decisions; purchases of inputs and services; utilization of the most
    efficient field practices; and prudent marketing decisions.
    Furthermore, this new definition takes into account advancements in
    farming, communication, and marketing technologies that producers must
    avail themselves to remain competitive and economically viable
    operations in today's farming world.
        Eligible management activities include the activities required for
    the farming operation as a whole, not just activities for the programs
    to which the ``actively engaged in farming'' requirement applies. For
    example, if a farming operation is participating in ARC or PLC and
    using grain produced under those programs to feed dairy cattle, those
    management activities with respect to the dairy component of the
    operation can be considered for eligibility purposes to qualify a farm
    manager. Similarly, if a farming operation receives MLG or LDPs on some
    crops, but not on others, all the management activities for all the
    crops are considered for eligibility purposes.
        The final rule clarifies that the significant contribution of a
    person's active management may be used only to qualify one person or
    legal entity in a farming operation as meeting the requirements of
    being actively engaged in farming. For example, if members of a joint
    operation are entities, one person's contribution will only count
    toward qualifying one of the entities (and not any other entity to
    which the person belongs), as actively engaged in farming.
    Summary of Comments Received and FSA Responses
        The 60 day comment period on the proposed rule ended May 26, 2015.
    CCC received 95 comments on the proposed rule. Comments were received
    from individual farmers, members of the public, slow food and
    sustainable agriculture groups, environmental groups, rural advocacy
    groups, the USDA Office of the Inspector General, an FSA employee, and
    groups representing farmers and growers. Most of the comments supported
    the idea of restricting eligibility for farm payments, but many of
    those supportive comments also suggested additional restrictions on
    eligibility. The rest of the comments, primarily from groups
    representing farmers and growers, did not support restricting
    eligibility for farm payments based on active contribution of
    management, or suggested that additional persons be made eligible for
    payment.
        Many of the suggestions to further restrict farm program payments
    were out of scope or exceed FSA's authority. For example, some
    commenters objected to the family member operation exemption that is
    required by the 2014 Farm Bill. The suggestion of one payment limit per
    farm, no exceptions, would eliminate the spouse exemption for actively
    engaged in farming, which FSA does not have authority to change. Other
    suggestions were good ideas that are already addressed by existing
    regulations. For example, the attribution rules already specified in 7
    CFR part 1400 prevent one person from earning multiple payment
    limitations based on their participation in multiple farming
    enterprises.
        The following discussion summarizes the issues raised by
    commenters, and FSA's responses to those comments as reflected in this
    rule:
    Family Members and Family Farm Exemptions
        Comment: The new requirements on the contribution of active
    personal management should be applied to all farming operations
    including family operations as a matter of clarity and equity.
        Response: Section 1604(c) of the 2014 Farm Bill specifically states
    that any revisions to the actively engaged in farming provisions will
    not apply to farming operations comprised entirely of family members.
    Therefore, no change to the rule is made in response to this comment.
        Comment: The definition of family member should be extended an
    additional generation to great great grandchildren.
        Response: If such a familial relationship of great great
    grandparent and great great grandchild is represented between members
    in the same farming operation, who are both currently members at the
    same time of such farming operation, this would fall under the existing
    definition of family member because the great great grandchild is a
    lineal descendant of the great great grandparent and would therefore be
    recognized as such by the FSA reviewing authority. No revision to the
    rule or handbooks is needed to accommodate five generations within the
    same farming operation in the application of this rule.
        Comment: FSA should interpret the definition of family member to
    include cousins, nieces, nephews, aunts, and uncles. While not lineal
    descendants, an extended family relationship exists between such
    individuals that many times are involved in the same farming
    operations.
        Response: The existing definition of family member in 7 U.S.C. 1308
    is centered on the term lineal descendant. FSA does not have authority
    to revise the current definition of family member in 7 CFR part 1400
    and therefore, cousin, niece, nephew, aunt, and uncle will not be
    included or considered to be included as a family member under the
    current definition. No change is made to the definition of ``family
    member.''
        Comment: The changing legal landscape regarding definitions of
    marriage, and the effect, if any, it has on the related definitions
    within the rule, should be considered for this rule.
        Response: The text in 7 CFR part 1400 refers only to ``spouse'' and
    has no reference to husbands or wives. No revisions to the regulations
    are necessary to address the issue of marriage equality.
        Comment: Given the importance now placed on family members for
    operations to meet specific payment eligibility requirements,
    clarification is needed regarding the continuity of a farming
    operation's eligibility and the immediate consequences of unplanned
    events such as death, incapacitation, or forced retirement of a family
    member that otherwise negates this family relationship amongst all
    members. (For example, a grandparent retires from the operation, and
    one of the grandchildren remaining is a cousin but not a lineal
    descendent or sibling of any other remaining members.) Furthermore, FSA
    should consider a ``grandfather clause'' for existing members of a
    family farming operation (non-lineal descendants) that have succeeded
    former members due to death or retirement of a parent or grandparent.
        Response: Current regulation and FSA policy as specified in the
    handbooks provide that if an individual is determined to be actively
    engaged in farming and is otherwise eligible to receive program
    benefits subsequently dies or becomes incapacitated and is no longer
    able to make contributions to the farming operation, that person is
    considered to be actively engaged in farming and eligible for the
    duration of the program year. Consistent with this policy, eligibility
    determinations for a farming operation and its members for a specific
    program year, and that are dependent upon the family member exemption,
    will remain effective for the entire program year regardless of when
    the death, disability, or incapacitation of a family member occurred
    during the same program year. Then, for the following program year, new
    determinations for payment eligibility and payment limitation purposes
    will be made by FSA based on the representations made by the farming
    operation, and its members, and applicable rules in effect at that
    time.
        Regarding ``grandfathering'' existing members of a farming
    operation, as noted above, the eligibility of a particular person or
    operation is effective for a program year. No other accommodations for
    additional years will be adopted or allowed based on the historical
    relationship of an operation's former members, because we do not have
    the authority to do so. The definition of ``family member'' as
    specified in 7 U.S.C. 1308 specifies that a family member is one to
    whom ``a member in the farming operation is related as lineal ancestor,
    lineal descendant, sibling, spouse, or otherwise by marriage.'' The
    plain language meaning of the authority is that a family member is one
    who is currently related to another member of the farming operation,
    and does not include a historical relationship for one who was related
    to someone who was formerly in the farming operation. Therefore, no
    change to the rule is made in response to this comment.
    Implementation Timing
        Comment: If the rule is making the changes in requirements for
    certain producers' eligibility effective for the 2016 crop year, we
    will have only a few months to potentially reorganize a farm operation
    to come into compliance. The effective date for the implementation of
    all changes to the actively engaged in farming provisions should be
    postponed until at least the 2017 crop year.
        Response: There is no requirement that a farm operation needs to be
    reorganized to come into compliance with the rule changes; the rule
    changes how many payment limitations the farming operation may qualify
    for based on managers' activities and the size and complexity of the
    farming operation. We have considered the implementation timing and
    made a change in the in response to this comment and will make the rule
    effective for the 2016 crop year for producers who only have spring
    planted covered crops and loan commodity crops and effective for the
    2017 crop year for producers who have both spring and fall planted
    covered crops and loan commodity crops.
    Definitions
        Comment: Although we are in agreement to FSA's new definition of
    active person management and the categories of management activities,
    FSA should include all of the management activities found in the Joint
    Explanatory Statement of the Committee of Conference (commonly referred
    to as the Managers' Report) on the 2014 Farm Bill.
        Response: FSA handbook instructions will be revised to include a
    list of all eligible management activities. The rule specifies the
    categories, and the handbook provides more details, so the categories
    are applied consistently. Therefore, no change to the rule is made in
    response to this comment.
        Comment: The phrase ``critical to the profitability of a farming
    operation'' used in the description of a significant contribution of
    active person management should be defined in the final rule.
        Response: The proposed rule outlined the three specific categories
    of management activities that will be considered as a contribution of
    active personal management and used in determining whether the person
    or member has made a significant contribution of active personal
    management. Although not explicitly stated, it must be understood that
    to be successful in farming, the timing of those management activities
    is critical and the failure to make a management decision or failing to
    take a management action, may make a difference in a farming operation
    remaining viable. So unless those specific management activities are
    timely completed by the person or member of a farming operation, the
    person or member will not only be considered to not meet the
    requirements to be determined actively engaged in farming, but also
    that such a failure of the person or member to timely perform the
    specified management activities would adversely affect the viability
    and continued existence of the farming operation itself. Therefore, we
    believe that the term critical is being used in the normal dictionary
    definition and an additional regulatory definition is not necessary.
        Comment: Rather than 500 hours or at least 25 percent of the total
    management needed for the farming operation, the new measurable
    standard for management should be increased to 1,000 hours or 50
    percent, equal to the existing labor contribution requirement.
        Response: Various proposals and concepts were considered in the
    development of this rule, including a minimum level of interest a
    person must hold in a farming operation before the person could qualify
    as actively engaged in farming with only an active personal management
    contribution, a weighted ranking of critical activities performed,
    Internal Revenue Service tax code requirements for a person to be
    considered a material participant in a business to claim a percentage
    of profit or loss from the business for personal income tax purposes,
    ARMS data of average size farming operations, and a higher hourly
    threshold, such the current hourly standard for active personal labor.
    The 500 hour or 25 percent standard was chosen because the ARMS found
    that generally in a farming operation, at least twice the amount of
    hours is devoted to labor activities as compared to the performance of
    actual management activities. Therefore, we are not making a change in
    the regulation in response to this comment.
        Comment: A numerical standard is not suitable to be applied at all
    to the performance of management activities.
        Response: The Managers' Report on the 2014 Farm Bill specifically
    directed the Secretary in implementing Section 1604 to develop clear
    and objective standards that can easily be measured and accounted for
    by members of the farming operation. In the absence of a consensus on
    an alternative standard for measuring a management contribution, the
    numerical standard from the proposed rule was adopted in the final
    rule. A numerical standard meets the requirements for being clear and
    objective, as well as easily measured and accounted for. Therefore, we
    are not making a change in the regulation.
        Comment: An equitable, measurable standard of significance should
    be one that combines both labor and management contributions due to the
    difficulty at times of deciding whether an activity or action is labor
    or management.
        Response: We have revised the rule in response to this comment to
    address the issue of a combined significant contribution of management
    and labor for farming operations that are subject to the new Subpart G.
    The existing regulations in 1400.3(b)(4) specify how such a combined
    significant contribution can meet the requirements of actively engaged
    in farming for operations that are not subject to new subpart G, where
    the activity is primarily labor or primarily management. This rule
    specifies a new measurable standard for a significant contribution of
    the combination of active personal labor and active personal management
    to a farming operation that is subject to subpart G that takes into
    account the reality of most farming operations where a person or member
    contributes not just labor or just management, but contributes a
    combination of both.
        The new standard for a contribution of the combination of active
    personal labor and active personal management balances these realities
    and establishes a minimum hourly requirement based on the existing
    hourly standard for a significant contribution of active personal labor
    of 1,000 hours and the new hourly standard adopted for a significant
    contribution of active personal management of 500 hours. However, the
    threshold for a significant contribution of combined labor and
    management is based on the proportionate share of the person's or
    member's combined contribution of both labor and management activities
    performed. Accordingly, under a combination of labor and management,
    the labor contribution is counted towards the existing 1,000 hours
    threshold for labor, and the management contribution is counted towards
    the 500 hours threshold for management. Because the rule establishes a
    combined limit for the combination of both labor and management, the
    minimum contribution amounts for each component are less than their
    individual limits if such determination would be made based on their
    sole contribution of labor (1000 hours) or management (500 hours) alone
    and the contributions under the combination are weighted to the
    activity that is greatest.
        There are five total hourly thresholds for a significant
    contribution of the combination of labor and management, based on a
    prorated combination of each type of contribution. For example, a
    combined contribution where the majority of the contribution is
    management is measured against a 550 total hour threshold that is
    weighted towards the 500 hour standard for management, whereas a
    combined contribution where the majority of the contribution is labor
    is measured against a 950 total hour threshold that is weighted toward
    the 1,000 hours required for a significant contribution of labor.
        The following table specifies the hourly thresholds for the
    combined contribution of active personal labor and active personal
    management based on the proportionate share of both labor and
    management activities reported.

       Combination of Active Personal Labor and Active Personal Management
               Minimum Requirement for a Significant Contribution
                                   [In hours]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Meets the minimum
    Management contribution   Labor contribution in       threshold for
            in hours                  hours                significant
                                                      contribution, in hours
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  475                       75                     550
                  450                      100                     550
                  425                      225                     650
                  400                      250                     650
                  375                      375                     750
                  350                      400                     750
                  325                      425                     750
                  300                      550                     850
                  275                      575                     850
                  250                      600                     850
                  225                      625                     850
                  200                      650                     850
                  175                      675                     850
                  150                      800                     950
                  125                      825                     950
                  100                      850                     950
                   75                      875                     950
                   50                      900                     950
                   25                      925                     950
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Under these weighted thresholds, two contributions of the same
    total contributed number of hours could have a different result, as it
    will depend upon how many hours of such total contribution are
    management and how many are labor. For example, a total combined
    contribution of 650 hours consisting of 250 hours of management and 400
    hours of labor would not qualify as a significant contribution, whereas
    a total combined contribution of 650 hours consisting of 400 hours of
    management and 250 hours of labor would qualify as a significant
    contribution.
        This standard will apply to each person that a farming operation
    requests to qualify as actively engaged in farming by making a
    significant contribution of the combination of labor and management,
    rather than only a significant contribution of management.
        This rule treats a combination of labor and management as a subset
    of the manager requirements. This new provision to clarify a combined
    significant contribution does not change the limit of three farm
    managers. As part of an entity seeking more than one payment limit for
    management, those farm managers qualifying because of a combination of
    labor and management are also covered by the new definition and
    recordkeeping requirements. In no case may more than three persons per
    farming operation qualify as actively engaged in farming based on a
    contribution of active personal management or a combination of labor
    and management activities.
        Comment: Section 1604 of the 2014 Farm Bill prohibits FSA from
    making changes or revisions to any of the existing regulations other
    than for the contribution of active personal management.
        Response: That is correct, and this rule does not change the
    measurable standard for the significant contribution of active personal
    labor, which remains at 1,000 hours or 50 percent of the labor required
    for the operation. The statute is clear and this rule changes the
    regulations only for a contribution of active personal management,
    including for a significant contribution of combined labor and
    management. The regulations that apply solely to a contribution of
    labor have not changed.
    Restrictions on Active Personal Management Contributions
        Comment: No restriction should be placed on the number of persons
    that a farming operation is allowed to qualify as actively engaged in
    farming with the significant contribution of management and no labor.
        Response: Section 1604 of the 2014 Farm Bill directs the Secretary
    to consider placing limits on the number of persons in a farming
    operation that may qualify as actively engaged in farming by only
    contributing management. Having no restriction would not address
    Section 1604. We considered various options while developing the
    proposed rule. As explained in the proposed rule, one option considered
    was a strict limit of one farm manager; however, we determined that it
    was reasonable to provide an option for a second and third farm manager
    in specific circumstances. The adoption of this restriction or limit
    addresses the 2014 Farm Bill provision while providing flexibility for
    large or complex operations. Therefore, no change to the rule is made
    in response to this comment.
        Comment: There should be only one additional manager, period, the
    same as included in the House and Senate farm bills. The total payment
    limit for a farm should be decoupled from the number of managers by
    setting a strict limit of one manager.
        Related comment: A non-family farm operation should not be allowed
    to exceed two eligible managers under any scenario.
        Response: Consideration was given to allowing only one manager, or
    two managers, per non-family farming operation for all circumstances.
    However, the 2014 Farm Bill contained requirements that consideration
    be given to other factors such as operation size and operation
    complexity. The decision was made to allow up to a total of three
    managers, but only with documentation of the need for the additional
    managers, based on both operation size and complexity. Therefore, no
    change to the rule is made in response to these comments.
        Comment: Restricting the number of managers completely negates the
    new definition of active personal management, and the removal of this
    restriction would provide flexibility for operations to adjust to the
    new management requirements and lessen the impact of implementation.
        Response: The new limit of one farm manager with exceptions for up
    to three farm managers is flexible and recognizes that many diverse
    farming operations and farming practices are in existence today and may
    require multiple persons in farm management roles. Therefore, no change
    to the rule is made in response to this comment.
        Comment: The standards for the allowance of additional managing
    members based in the operation's size and complexity are a recipe for
    abuse, permissiveness, and inconsistent application by COCs and STCs.
        Response: All COC and STC recommendations for variances to the
    established standards for operation size and complexity, and all
    approvals of requests for additional managing members in a farming
    operation, are subject to approval and concurrence by DAFP before
    implementation. In addition, there will be no instances in which more
    than three farm managers per operation will be allowed by DAFP.
    Therefore, no change to the rule is made in response to this comment.
        Comment: The new restriction of one contribution qualifies only one
    person or member in the farming operation is unreasonable because for
    liability or other purposes, a non-family manager may need to spread
    his or her management contributions over more than one entity or member
    to make all of them eligible for payment.
        Response: In this rule, one person's contribution of active
    personal management or a combination of management and labor can only
    qualify only one person or one legal entity as actively engaged. Aside
    from the spousal provision for actively engaged in farming that allows
    one spouse's actions to be used to qualify the other spouse as actively
    engaged, we have no statutory authority to permit the contributions of
    one person to qualify additional persons and legal entities that
    represent multiple payment limitations in the same farming operation.
    Furthermore, without this restriction, the tracking and measurement of
    actual contributions of labor or management being made to a farming
    operation would be difficult, if not elusive, to determine to any
    measurable level or degree of risk. Therefore, we are not making a
    change in the regulation.
    Recordkeeping Requirements
        Comment: The requirement to keep a written log of the performance
    of management activities should be eliminated on the premise that such
    records would be overly burdensome to the members, disruptive to the
    workflow, and too expensive for an operation to maintain.
        Response: With the implementation of a measurable standard for the
    contribution of active personal management in hours or percentage of
    total hours expended in the farming operation, a written record or log
    of the performance of management activities is required from all
    members. These records are essential to enable county and State FSA
    committees to determine whether or not a significant contribution of
    specific management activities was performed to at least the minimum
    level necessary to qualify as a significant contribution as defined.
    Furthermore, the implementation of a measurable standard is meaningless
    in the absence of actual documentation to verify that the minimum level
    of the standard established has been met by the person who represents
    as meeting the standard. The new recordkeeping requirements apply only
    to joint operations and legal entities comprised of non-family members
    that are seeking to qualify more than one farm manager. Therefore, we
    are not making a change in the regulation.
        Comment: The 2014 Farm Bill had a provision that FSA develop and
    implement a plan to monitor compliance reviews to ensure producers'
    compliance to the provisions of part 1400. Why was that not
    specifically in the rule?
        Response: This requirement was already met prior to the
    implementation of the 2014 Farm Bill. FSA implemented an automated
    tracking system to record compliance review results and to monitor
    completion of compliance reviews in 2012. Review results and progress
    on the completion of compliance reviews for the 2009 through 2013
    program years are currently being tracked. The United States Government
    Accountability Office (GAO) used FSA's tracking system in completion of
    the most recent audit of payment eligibility and payment limitation
    provisions (GAO 13-781, ``Farm Programs: Changes Are Needed to
    Eligibility Requirements for Being Actively Involved in Farming,''
    September 2013). The current regulations in 7 CFR 1400.2(h) already
    specify that compliance reviews of farming operations and corresponding
    documentation may be conducted at any time.
        To address this comment and further clarify the compliance review
    process, this final rule adds a new provision to 7 CFR 1400.2 to
    specify that the Deputy Administrator will periodically monitor the
    status of completion of the assigned compliance reviews, and take any
    actions deemed appropriate to ensure the timely completion of the
    reviews for payment eligibility and payment limitation compliance
    purposes.
    General Comments
        Comment: This rule removes certain flexibilities to where many farm
    families will become less sustainable to the point that they may lose
    their ability to participate in farm programs.
        Response: It is unclear how limiting the number of persons who may
    qualify for payment based solely on management will in any way reduce
    the sustainability of family farms. Furthermore, family farming
    operations are exempt from this rule. Therefore, no change to the rule
    is made in response to this comment.
        Comment: Farm policy must seriously address the aging farmer crisis
    and effective payment caps are one tool USDA has to address this issue.
        Response: Payment limits have been in place since the 1970s, and
    are not changed with this rule. The eligibility requirements for the
    receipt of farm program payments have been made more restrictive with
    each successive legislation to date. FSA does not have authority to
    modify the current payment limitations below what is specified in the
    2014 Farm Bill. We have outreach programs that target beginning
    farmers, and many of our programs have special provisions, such as fee
    waivers, to encourage beginning farmers.
        Comment: Lax payment limits allow big farms to outbid beginning
    farmers for land and leases. Limit or restrict the issuance of program
    payments to new and small farm operators only.
        Response: FSA does not have authority to implement such a
    restriction. However, the average Adjusted Gross Income (AGI)
    provisions first implemented under the Farm Security and Rural
    Investment Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-171, generally referred to as the
    2002 Farm Bill) and that remain, as amended by subsequent legislation,
    do restrict the payment eligibility of recipients with incomes above
    the specified AGI levels. As specified in 7 CFR 1400, persons with an
    AGI above the limit are not eligible for payments or benefits under ARC
    and PLC, price support programs including MAL and LDP, the Conservation
    Reserve Program, the Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program, most
    FSA disaster assistance programs, and some conservation programs
    operated by the Natural Resources Conservation Service. Therefore, no
    change to the rule is made in response to this comment.
        Comment: Require any operation that reorganizes to qualify for the
    family farm exemption to wait 5 years following the effective date of
    this rule to qualify for the exemption.
        Response: The 2014 Farm Bill does not authorize such a provision.
    The 2014 Farm Bill requires that this rule not apply to any farming
    operation comprised entirely of family members, and with no such
    waiting period. Therefore, no change to the rule is made in response to
    this comment.
        Comment: FSA's failure to evaluate the effects of this proposal on
    the environment would violate the National Environmental Policy Act
    (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347), current FSA regulations, and would be
    arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and contrary to the law
    under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553).
        Response: FSA has evaluated the effects of this proposal and
    determined that this final rule does not constitute a major Federal
    action that would significantly affect the quality of the human
    environment, individually or cumulatively. Therefore, FSA will not
    prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement
    for this regulatory action.
    Effective Date
        The Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) provides generally
    that before rules are issued by government agencies, the rule is
    required to be published in the Federal Register, and the required
    publication of a substantive rule is to be not less than 30 days before
    its effective date. One of the exceptions is when the agency finds good
    cause for not delaying the effective date. Subsection 1601(c)(2) of the
    2014 Farm Bill makes this final rule exempt from notice and comment.
    Therefore, using the administrative procedure provisions in 5 U.S.C.
    553, FSA finds that there is good cause for making this rule effective
    less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. This rule
    allows FSA to make the changes to the actively engaged regulations in
    time for the new 2016 program year. Therefore, this final rule is
    effective when published in the Federal Register.
    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
        Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' and
    Executive Order 13563, ``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,''
    direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available
    regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select
    regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential
    economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive
    impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance
    of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of
    harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility.
        The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) designated this rule as
    significant under Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and
    Review,'' and therefore, OMB has reviewed this rule. The costs and
    benefits of this final rule are summarized below. The full cost benefit
    analysis is available on regulations.gov.
    Summary of Economic Impacts
        About 3,200 joint operations could lose eligibility for around $106
    million in total crop year 2016 to 2018 benefits from the PLC, ARC, and
    MAL Programs. The largest savings, around $38 million, are projected
    for both the 2016 and 2017 crops (note that the exemption for
    operations with fall plantings ends with the 2016 crops). Savings are
    projected to decline to around $29 million for the 2018 crop if prices
    improve, and in that case, producers would be eligible for lower
    benefits from the MAL, LDP, ARC, and PLC Programs, independent of the
    requirements of this rule. These savings can also be viewed as a cost
    of this rule for producers. This rule does not change the payment limit
    per person, which is a joint $125,000 for the applicable programs. As
    specified in the current regulations, the payment limits apply to
    general partnerships and joint ventures (collectively referred to as
    joint operations) based on the number of eligible partners in the joint
    operation; each partner may qualify the joint operation for a payment
    of up to $125,000. In other words, each person in the joint operation
    who loses eligibility due to this rule will lose eligibility for up to
    $125,000 in payments for the joint operation.
        Other types of entities (such as corporations and limited liability
    companies) that share a single payment limit of $125,000, regardless of
    their number of owners, would not have their payments reduced by this
    rule. Each owner must contribute management or labor to the operation
    to qualify the operation to receive the member's share of the single
    payment limit.
        No entities comprised solely of family members will be impacted by
    this rule.
        If commodity prices are sufficiently high that few producers are
    eligible for any benefits, the costs of this rule to producers (and
    savings to USDA) would be less, possibly even zero. That is, if very
    few joint operations were to earn farm program payments due to high
    commodity prices, limiting eligibility on the basis of management
    contributions would not have much impact. Government costs for
    implementing this rule are expected to be minimal ($0.4 million). The
    applicable joint operations' opportunity costs associated with keeping
    management logs over the course of each year are expected to be about
    $7 million, but that amount could decline over time as managers
    standardize their recordkeeping.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act
        The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), as amended by
    the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
    (SBREFA), generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory analysis
    of any rule whenever an agency is required by APA or any other law to
    publish a rule, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have
    a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
    entities. This final rule will not have a significant impact on a
    substantial number of small entities. The farming operations of small
    entities generally do not have multiple members that contribute only
    active personal management to meet the requirements of actively engaged
    in farming.
    Environmental Review
        The environmental impacts of this final rule have been considered
    in a manner consistent with the provisions of NEPA, the regulations of
    the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), and the
    FSA regulations for compliance with NEPA (7 CFR part 799). The
    Agricultural Act of 2014 (the 2014 Farm Bill) requires that USDA
    publish a regulation to specifically define a ``significant
    contribution of active personal management'' for the purposes of
    determining payment eligibility. This regulation clarifies the
    activities that qualify as active personal management and the
    recordkeeping requirements to document eligible management activities.
    This rule is making a mandatory administrative clarification. As such,
    FSA has determined that this final rule does not constitute a major
    Federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human
    environment, individually or cumulatively. Therefore, FSA will not
    prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement
    for this regulatory action.
    Executive Order 12372
        Executive Order 12372, ``Intergovernmental Review of Federal
    Programs,'' requires consultation with state and local officials that
    would be directly affected by proposed Federal financial assistance.
    The objectives of the Executive Order are to foster an
    intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened Federalism, by relying
    on state and local processes for state and local government
    coordination and review of proposed Federal financial assistance and
    direct Federal development. For reasons specified in the final rule
    related notice regarding 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V (48 FR 29115, June
    24, 1983), the programs and activities in this rule are excluded from
    the scope of Executive Order 12372.
    Executive Order 12988
        This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988,
    ``Civil Justice Reform.'' This rule will not preempt state or local
    laws, regulations, or policies unless they represent an irreconcilable
    conflict with this rule. This rule will not have retroactive effect.
    Before any judicial actions may be brought regarding the provisions of
    this rule, the administrative appeal provisions of 7 CFR parts 11 and
    780 are to be exhausted.
    Executive Order 13132
        This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 13132,
    ``Federalism.'' The policies contained in this rule would not have any
    substantial direct effect on states, on the relationship between the
    Federal Government and the states, or on the distribution of power and
    responsibilities among the various levels of government, except as
    required by law. Nor would this rule impose substantial direct
    compliance costs on state and local governments. Therefore consultation
    with the states is not required.
    Executive Order 13175
        This final rule has been reviewed in accordance with the
    requirements of Executive Order 13175, ``Consultation and Coordination
    with Indian Tribal Governments.'' Executive Order 13175 requires
    Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with Tribes on a government-
    to-government basis on policies that have Tribal implications,
    including regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation,
    and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct
    effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the
    Federal Government and Indian Tribes or on the distribution of power
    and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.
        FSA has assessed the impact of this final rule on Indian Tribes and
    determined that this rule would not, to our knowledge, have Tribal
    implications that require Tribal consultation under Executive Order
    13175. If a Tribe requests consultation, FSA will work with the USDA
    Office of Tribal Relations to ensure meaningful consultation is
    provided where changes, additions, and modifications identified in this
    rule are not expressly mandated by the 2014 Farm Bill.
    Unfunded Mandates
        Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA, Pub. L.
    104-4) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their
    regulatory actions on state, local, and Tribal governments or the
    private sector. Agencies generally must prepare a written statement,
    including cost benefits analysis, for proposed and final rules with
    Federal mandates that may result in expenditures of $100 million or
    more in any 1 year for state, local or Tribal governments, in the
    aggregate, or to the private sector. UMRA generally requires agencies
    to consider alternatives and adopt the more cost effective or least
    burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. This
    final rule contains no Federal mandates, as defined in Title II of
    UMRA, for state, local and Tribal governments or the private sector.
    Therefore, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202
    and 205 of UMRA.
    Federal Domestic Assistance Programs
        The title and number of the programs in the Catalog of Federal
    Domestic Assistance to which this rules applies are: 10.051 Commodity
    Loans and Loan Deficiency Payments; 10.112 Price Loss Coverage; and
    10.113 Agriculture Risk Coverage.
    Paperwork Reduction Act
        The regulations in this final rule are exempt from requirements of
    the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), as specified in
    Section 1601(c)(2)(B) of the 2014 Farm Bill, which provides that these
    regulations be promulgated and administered without regard to the
    Paperwork Reduction Act. Section 1604 of the farm bill requires us to
    ensure that any additional paperwork required by this rule be limited
    only to persons who are subject to this rule. The additional recording
    and recordkeeping requirements of this final rule will only apply to
    persons who are claiming eligibility for payments based on a
    significant contribution of active personal management or a combination
    of labor and management to the farming operation.
    E-Government Act Compliance
        FSA is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote
    the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide
    increased opportunities for citizen access to government information
    and services, and for other purposes.
    List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1400
        Agriculture, Loan programs--agriculture, Conservation, Price
    support programs.
        For the reasons discussed above, CCC amends 7 CFR part 1400 as
    follows:
    Part 1400--Payment Limitation and Payment Eligibility
        u 1. The authority citation for part 1400 continues to read as
    follows:

              Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1308, 1308-1, 1308-2, 1308-3, 1308-3a,
            1308-4, and 1308-5.
     1400.1  [Amended]
        u 2. In  1400.1(a)(8), remove the words ``C and D'' and add the
    words ``C, D, and G'' in their place.
        u 3. Amend  1400.2 by adding paragraph (i) to read as follows:
       1400.2  Administration
              * * * * *
              (i) The Deputy Administrator will periodically monitor the
            status of completion of assigned compliance reviews and take
            any actions deemed appropriate to ensure timely completion of
            reviews for payment eligibility and payment limitation
            compliance purposes.

        u 4. Add subpart G to read as follows:
      Subpart G--Additional Payment Eligibility Provisions for Joint
            Operations and Legal Entities Comprised of Non-Family Members
            or Partners, Stockholders, or Persons With an Ownership
            Interest in the Farming Operation
              Sec.
                1400.600  Applicability.
                1400.601  Definitions.
                1400.602  Restrictions on active personal management
            contributions.
                1400.603  Recordkeeping requirements.
      Subpart G--Additional Payment Eligibility Provisions for Joint
            Operations and Legal Entities Comprised of Non-Family Members
            or Partners, Stockholders, or Persons With an Ownership
            Interest in the Farming Operation
       1400.600  Applicability.
              (a) This subpart is applicable to all of the programs as
            specified in  1400.1 and any other programs as specified in
            individual program regulations.
              (b) The requirements of this subpart will apply to farming
            operations for FSA program payment eligibility and limitation
            purposes as specified in subparts B and C of this part.
              (c) The requirements of this subpart do not apply to farming
            operations specified in paragraph (b) of this section if
            either:

                      (1) All persons who are partners, stockholders, or
                    persons with an ownership interest in the farming
                    operation or of any entity that is a member of the
                    farming operation are family members as defined in
                    1400.3; or
                      (2) The farming operation is seeking to qualify only
                    one person as making a significant contribution of
                    active personal management, or a significant
                    contribution of the combination of active personal
                    labor and active personal management, for the purposes
                    of qualifying only one person or entity as actively
                    engaged in farming.
       1400.601  Definitions.
              (a) The terms defined in  1400.3 are applicable to this
            subpart and all documents issued in accordance with this part,
            except as otherwise provided in this section.
              (b) The following definitions are also applicable to this
            subpart:

                      Active personal management means personally providing
                    and participating in management activities considered
                    critical to the profitability of the farming operation
                    and performed under one or more of the following
                    categories:

                              (i) Capital, which includes:

                                      (A) Arranging financing and managing
                                    capital;
                                      (B) Acquiring equipment;
                                      (C) Acquiring land and negotiating
                                    leases;
                                      (D) Managing insurance; and
                                      (E) Managing participation in USDA
                                    programs;

                              (ii) Labor, which includes hiring and
                            managing of hired labor; and
                              (iii) Agronomics and marketing, which
                            includes:

                                      (A) Selecting crops and making
                                    planting decisions;
                                      (B) Acquiring and purchasing crop
                                    inputs;
                                      (C) Managing crops (that is, whatever
                                    managerial decisions are needed with
                                    respect to keeping the growing crops
                                    living and healthy-soil fertility and
                                    fertilization, weed control, insect
                                    control, irrigation if applicable) and
                                    making harvest decisions; and
                                      (D) Pricing and marketing of crop
                                    production.

                      Significant contribution of active personal
                    management means active personal management activities
                    performed by a person, with a direct or indirect
                    ownership interest in the farming operation, on a
                    regular, continuous, and substantial basis to the
                    farming operation, and meets at least one of the
                    following to be considered significant:

                              (i) Performs at least 25 percent of the total
                            management hours required for the farming
                            operation on an annual basis; or
                              (ii) Performs at least 500 hours of
                            management annually for the farming operation.

                      Significant contribution of the combination of active
                    personal labor and active personal management means a
                    contribution of a combination of active personal labor
                    and active personal management that:

                              (i) Is critical to the profitability of the
                            farming operation;
                              (ii) Is performed on a regular, continuous,
                            and substantial basis; and
                              (iii) Meets the following required number of
                            hours:

       Combination of Active Personal Labor and Active Personal Management
               Minimum Requirement for a Significant Contribution
                                   [In hours]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Meets the minimum
    Management contribution   Labor contribution in       threshold for
            in hours                  hours                significant
                                                      contribution, in hours
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  475                       75                     550
                  450                      100                     550
                  425                      225                     650
                  400                      250                     650
                  375                      375                     750
                  350                      400                     750
                  325                      425                     750
                  300                      550                     850
                  275                      575                     850
                  250                      600                     850
                  225                      625                     850
                  200                      650                     850
                  175                      675                     850
                  150                      800                     950
                  125                      825                     950
                  100                      850                     950
                   75                      875                     950
                   50                      900                     950
                   25                      925                     950
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

       1400.602  Restrictions on active personal management contributions.
              (a) If a farming operation includes any non-family members as
            specified under the provisions of  1400.201(b)(2) and (3) and
            the farming operation is seeking to qualify more than one
            person as providing a significant contribution of active
            personal management, or a significant contribution of the
            combination of active personal labor and active personal
            management, then:

                      (1) Each such person must maintain contemporaneous
                    records or logs as specified in  1400.603; and
                      (2) Subject to paragraph (b) of this section, if the
                    farming operation seeks not more than one additional
                    person to qualify as providing a significant
                    contribution of active personal management, or a
                    significant contribution of the combination of active
                    personal labor and active personal management, because
                    the operation is large, then the operation may qualify
                    for one such additional person if the farming
                    operation:

                              (i) Produces and markets crops on 2,500 acres
                            or more of cropland;
                              (ii) Produces honey with more than 10,000
                            hives; or
                              (iii) Produces wool with more than 3,500
                            ewes; and

                      (3) If the farming operation seeks not more than one
                    additional person to qualify as providing a significant
                    contribution of active personal management, or a
                    significant contribution of the combination of active
                    personal labor and active personal management, because
                    the operation is complex, then the operation may
                    qualify for one such additional person if the farming
                    operation is determined by the FSA state committee as
                    complex after considering the factors described in
                    paragraphs (a)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section. Any
                    determination that a farming operation is complex by an
                    FSA state committee must be reviewed and DAFP must
                    concur with such determination for it to be
                    implemented. To demonstrate complexity, the farming
                    operation will be required to provide information to
                    the FSA state committee on the following:

                              (i) Number and type of livestock, crops, or
                            other agricultural products produced and
                            marketing channels used; and
                              (ii) Geographical area covered.

              (b) FSA state committees may adjust the limitations described
            in paragraph (a)(2) of this section up or down by not more than
            15 percent if the FSA state committee determines that the
            relative size of farming operations in the state justify making
            a modification of either or both of these limitations. If the
            FSA state committee seeks to make a larger adjustment, then
            DAFP will review and may approve such request.
              (c) If a farming operation seeks to qualify a total of three
            persons as providing a significant contribution of active
            personal management, or a significant contribution of the
            combination of active personal labor and active personal
            management, then the farming operation must demonstrate both
            size and complexity as specified in paragraph (a) of this
            section.
              (d) In no case may more than three persons in the same
            farming operation qualify as providing a significant
            contribution of active personal management, or a significant
            contribution of the combination of active personal labor and
            active personal management, as defined by this subpart.
              (e) A person's contribution of active personal management, or
            the contribution of the combination of active personal labor
            and active personal management, to a farming operation
            specified in  1400.601(b) will only qualify one member of that
            farming operation as actively engaged in farming as defined in
            this part. Other individual persons in the same farming
            operation are not precluded from making management
            contributions, except that such contributions will not be
            recognized as meeting the requirements of being a significant
            contribution of active personal management.
       1400.603  Recordkeeping requirements.
              (a) Any farming operation requesting that more than one
            person qualify as making a significant contribution of active
            personal management, or a significant contribution of the
            combination of active personal labor and active personal
            management, must maintain contemporaneous records or activity
            logs for all persons that make any contribution of any
            management to a farming operation under this subpart that must
            include, but are not limited to, the following:

                      (1) Location where the management activity was
                    performed; and
                      (2) Time expended and duration of the management
                    activity performed.

              (b) To qualify as providing a significant contribution of
            active personal management each person covered by this subpart
            must:

                      (1) Maintain these records and supporting business
                    documentation; and
                      (2) If requested, timely make these records available
                    for review by the appropriate FSA reviewing authority.

              (c) If a person fails to meet the requirement of paragraphs
            (a) and (b) of this section, then both of the following will
            apply:

                      (1) The person's contribution of active personal
                    management as represented to the farming operation for
                    payment eligibility purposes will be disregarded; and
                      (2) The person's payment eligibility will be re-
                    determined for the applicable program year.

    Val Dolcini,
    Executive Vice President, Commodity Credit Corporation, and
    Administrator, Farm Service Agency.

    [FR Doc. 2015-31532 Filed 12-15-15; 8:45 a.m.]

    BILLING CODE 3410-05-P
                                     ______

      Submitted Press Release by Hon. Glenn Thompson, a Representative in
                           Congress from Pennsylvania

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    [https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/pr/15-arrested-law-enforcement-
    operation-targeting-fraudulent-withdrawal-benefits]
    Press Release
    15 Arrested in Law Enforcement Operation Targeting Fraudulent
            Withdrawal of Benefits Designated for Low-Income Families
    Thursday, March 2, 2023

    For Immediate Release

    U.S. Attorney's Office, Central District of California

        Los Angeles--``Operation Urban Justice,'' a large-scale law
    enforcement operation this week, has resulted in the arrest of 15
    individuals who allegedly used information from ``skimmed'' electronic
    benefit transfer (EBT) cards to make unauthorized withdrawals of funds
    that had been disbursed to low-income individuals, the Justice
    Department announced today.
        More than 300 law enforcement officers early Wednesday morning
    began monitoring about 20 ATM locations across the Los Angeles area and
    identified individuals who were making multiple cash withdrawals with
    cards encoded with information that had been stolen from cards used by
    the California Department of Social Services to provide CalFresh and
    CalWORKs benefits to qualified recipients.
        Authorities made arrests after determining that the suspects at the
    ATMs were not entitled to access funds that had been deposited into
    beneficiary's accounts. At this time, Federal prosecutors have filed
    five criminal complaints charging defendants with the use of
    unauthorized access devices (the cards used to make the cash
    withdrawals) or possession of 15 or more unauthorized access devices,
    and they are expected to file additional cases later today and
    tomorrow. The defendants arrested, many of them Romanian nationals, are
    expected to begin making initial appearances this afternoon in United
    States District Court.
        The Los Angeles Police Department started the investigation into
    the fraudulent withdrawal of benefits in August 2022, and the United
    States Secret Service soon after joined ``Operation Urban Justice'' as
    a joint partner.
        A number of law enforcement agencies are providing significant
    support, which included participating in Wednesday's takedown,
    including U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Homeland Security
    Investigations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Glendale
    Police Department, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, the
    California Department of Social Services, the United States Department
    of Agriculture's Office of Inspector General, and the Romanian Brigade
    for Combatting Criminal Organizations (which is part of the Romanian
    National Police).
        Documents filed in Federal court outline how the California
    Department of Social Services has identified more than $38.9 million in
    funds stolen from victims' EBT cards. This fraud has targeted CalWORKs
    and CalFresh (previously known as ``food stamps''), both of which are
    intended to help low-income beneficiaries purchase food and provide for
    basic needs.
        The investigation has revealed that the fraudulent withdrawal of
    these benefits is done with ``cloned'' cards, which are debit cards,
    gift cards or other devices with magnetic strips that have been encoded
    with information from legitimate EBT cards. Court documents allege that
    at least some of those involved in the fraudulent withdrawals obtained
    stolen EBT card information from ``skimming'' devices that were
    installed on ATM machines.
        ``By stealing public benefits using counterfeit EBT cards, the
    defendant in these cases plundered the accounts of some of our
    community's poorest residents--people who need these benefits to
    survive,'' said United States Attorney Martin Estrada. ``These actions
    are part of a larger assault on the EBT system, one which has caused
    tens of millions of dollars in losses. Working with our law enforcement
    partners who have devoted untold resources to combating this issue, my
    Office will continue to do everything in our power to stop criminals
    from victimizing people in our community, especially those who are most
    vulnerable.''
        ``Today's successful operation demonstrates how a sophisticated and
    extensive criminal scheme can be disrupted and dismantled by a team of
    law enforcement professionals who approach their investigation with an
    even greater degree of cooperation,'' said James Huse, Special Agent in
    Charge with the Los Angeles Field Office of the United States Secret
    Service. ``The results of this investigation are a testament to strong
    partnerships across the law enforcement community. Our efforts today
    serve to protect the Electronic Benefits Transfer system and ensure
    that public funds reach those who need them without delay or
    distress.''
        ``On March 1, 2023, the Los Angeles Police Department's Commercial
    Crimes Division partnered with the United States Secret Service and
    other Federal law enforcement agencies to conduct a collaborative
    enforcement operation targeting the State of California's Electronic
    Benefits Transfer (EBT) fraud issue with losses in the tens of millions
    of dollars,'' said Los Angeles Police Chief Michel Moore. ``The
    operation involved numerous Los Angeles Police Department personnel and
    resulted in the recovery of 429 cloned state issued EBT cards, $129,000
    in U.S. currency unlawfully drawn from ATM machines at several Southern
    California banking institutions, as well as resulting in the arrests of
    11 Romanian national individuals for EBT access card fraud with losses
    totaling over $1,000--a Federal felony. All of the individual cases
    will be filed by the United States Department of Justice (USDOJ),
    United States Attorney's Office (USAO) for Federal prosecution.''
        On February 2, as part of Operation Urban Justice, three additional
    defendants were arrested after they allegedly withdrew funds from ATM
    machines in Hollywood and Tarzana with cloned EBT cards. All three were
    subsequently named in Federal indictments that charge them with bank
    fraud (which carries a statutory maximum penalty of 30 years in Federal
    prison), aggravated identity theft, unlawful use of unauthorized access
    devices and possession of 15 or more unauthorized access devices.

        Criminal complaints and indictments contain allegations that a
    defendant has committed a crime. Every defendant is presumed innocent
    until and unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

        The United States Secret Service and the Los Angeles Police
    Department are investigating these matters.
        Assistant United States Attorneys Nisha Chandran and Joshua O.
    Mausner of the General Crimes Section are prosecuting these cases.
    Substantial assistance was provided by the following Assistant United
    States Attorneys, all from the General Crimes Section: Laura A.
    Alexander, Jeremy K. Beecher, Haoxiaohan H. Cai, Declan T. Conroy,
    Alexander S. Gorin, David C. Lachman, Kelly L. Larocque, Jena A.
    MacCabe, Angela C. Makabali, Sonya A. Nevarez, Daniel H. Weiner, and
    David W. Williams.

              Contact: Ciaran McEvoy, Public Information Officer,
            ciaran.mcevoy@usdoj.gov, (213) 894-4465.

                                                     Updated March 2, 2023.
                                     ______

    Submitted Reports by Hon. Glenn Thompson, a Representative in Congress
                               from Pennsylvania
                                    Report 1
    [https://www.aei.org/research-products/report/promoting-mobility-
    through-snap-toward-better-health-and-employment-outcomes/]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Perspectives on Opportunity
    Promoting Mobility Through SNAP: Toward Better Health and Employment
            Outcomes
    By Angela Rachidi and Thomas O'Rourke, [American Enterprise Institute
    for Public Policy Research]

    May 2023

              The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is among
            the nation's largest safety-net programs, helping low-income
            households afford food, improve nutrition, and support
            employment. As program expenditures continue to grow, assessing
            SNAP from the perspective of employment and health outcomes is
            crucial. We analyze administrative and survey data to document
            trends in employment and health outcomes for adult SNAP
            recipients from 1996 to 2019. We find the fastest-growing
            groups of the adult caseload suffer from low employment levels
            and poor health outcomes. These results suggest that program
            reforms should focus on not only reducing hunger but also
            improving employment and nutrition.

        The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (or SNAP, formerly
    called the Food Stamp Program) provides food benefits to 40 million
    Americans each month at a total cost of over $110 billion in 2022 (USDA
    2023b). One of SNAP's primary goals is to reduce hunger and
    malnutrition by helping low-income households afford food. However, the
    program's purpose goes beyond simply providing resources for food. It
    also aims to help families escape poverty by encouraging proper
    nutrition and stable, gainful employment.
        A growing body of research shows that SNAP's design can work
    against these goals by discouraging employment and contributing to poor
    diet (Hoynes and Schanzenbach 2012; East 2018; Andreyeva, Tripp, and
    Schwartz 2015; Mande and Flaherty 2023). Unlike other Federal food
    assistance programs, SNAP has no nutritional standards, allowing
    participants to purchase any food or beverage product intended for
    consumption, except alcohol. As a result, data show that sizable
    portions of SNAP dollars purchase non-nutritious foods, such as sugary
    beverages and ultra-processed foods, which can lead to poor health
    (USDA 2016).
        Additionally, SNAP's work requirements have a limited scope, with
    the most stringent work requirements applying only to age 18-49 able-
    bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs). Over the past several years,
    states have exploited exceptions in the law to waive these work
    requirements, resulting in many ABAWDs not subject to a work
    requirement at all. Moreover, research suggests that SNAP benefits can
    disincentivize work among some low-income families, reducing the
    prospects of upward mobility.
        Although previous research has investigated SNAP's health and
    employment effects, we know little about trends in employment and
    health outcomes for adult SNAP participants over time. To document
    trends in SNAP participants' health and employment outcomes over the
    past 2 decades, we analyzed data from the U.S. Department of
    Agriculture's (USDA) Quality Control (QC) dataset to explore changes in
    the composition and employment levels of the SNAP adult caseload from
    1996 to 2019 and health data from the National Health Interview Survey
    (NHIS).
        SNAP QC data compile demographic and economic information on a
    representative sample of SNAP households from all 50 states, collected
    to determine SNAP eligibility. The NHIS is a household survey conducted
    yearly by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention asking
    respondents a variety of health- and employment-related questions,
    including whether anyone in the household receives SNAP. Both datasets
    are cross-sectional, meaning the results reflect the SNAP caseload at
    points in time, not necessarily the same individuals over time. For our
    analyses, we grouped SNAP adults by age and parent status, stemming
    from how SNAP policy is currently structured.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ For example, non-parent adults age 18-49 are subject to work
    requirements, so for our analyses, we use the same age range.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Our results show that adult SNAP recipients have had especially
    poor health and employment levels over the past 2 decades. We found
    that the average age of adults receiving SNAP has risen substantially
    over time and that these adults were more likely than ever to be
    childless. Older and childless adults displayed the lowest employment
    levels of all recipients consistently across years. Additionally, we
    documented high rates of physical and mental health issues among all
    groups of SNAP adults, especially when compared to other groups of U.S.
    adults. Making matters worse, these health and employment challenges
    are affecting a greater number of low-income Americans as SNAP
    caseloads have grown over time. Our findings raise serious concerns
    about the employment and health status of SNAP adults and the program's
    potential contribution to these alarming statistics.
        In the sections that follow, we first describe SNAP's history,
    including the evolution of policies related to employment and
    nutrition. Next, we document SNAP's caseload and expenditure growth
    since 1996, along with changes to the composition of the SNAP caseload
    by age and parent profiles. In the third section, we review employment
    levels for the SNAP caseload by age and parent profiles using SNAP QC
    data. In the fourth section, we review health outcomes using data from
    the NHIS, also according to age and parent profiles. We conclude with
    key takeaways for policymakers as they consider SNAP reforms.
    Program History
        The Food Stamp Program began in the 1930s as a small effort to
    match excess commodities from farmers with hungry families, offering
    disadvantaged Americans an essential social service throughout the
    Great Depression. The modern-day SNAP--retitled from the Food Stamp
    Program in 2008--has roots in this early program but long ago shifted
    its purpose away from redistributing excess commodities to reducing
    poverty. Upon signing the Food Stamp Act of 1964, President Lyndon B.
    Johnson signaled this shift, saying, ``As a permanent program, the food
    stamp plan will be one of our most valuable weapons for the war on
    poverty'' (Johnson 1964).
        Several additional legislative efforts in the following decade
    further transformed the program into its current form. Notably,
    President Richard Nixon set a goal in 1969 to end hunger in America
    (Nixon 1969), and Congress responded by mandating that states offer the
    Food Stamp Program nationwide by 1974, which began a period of
    exceptional program growth.
        The language used in the 1964 Food Stamp Act outlined the core
    goals of the program, which remain in place today: ``It is hereby
    declared to be the policy of Congress, in order to promote the general
    welfare . . . to safeguard the health and well-being of the nation's
    population by raising levels of nutrition among low-income
    households.'' \2\ The program's goals were not limited to the vision of
    ``reducing hunger and malnutrition''; they also included promoting more
    nutritious diets among low-income Americans and supporting domestic
    agriculture. In the 1977 Food Stamp Act, Congress attributed ``limited
    purchasing power'' as a factor leading ``to hunger and malnutrition in
    the U.S.'' and authorized food stamps to ``permit low-income households
    to obtain a more nutritious diet through normal channels of trade by
    increasing food purchasing power for all eligible households who apply
    for participation.'' \3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Food Stamp Act of 1964, Pub. L. No. 88-525; and Food and
    Nutrition Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 88-525.
        \3\ Food Stamp Act of 1977, Pub. L. No. 88-525.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Consistent with Congress's motivation to promote nutrition (while
    also supporting domestic agriculture), SNAP has always been an in-kind
    benefit that recipients can use only for food and beverages, making it
    different from other safety-net programs that offer direct cash
    assistance, such as cash welfare. Efforts to restrict benefit use even
    further--such as excluding items with no nutritional value--invited
    intense debate throughout the 1970s that continues today, but Congress
    has never restricted benefit use beyond a few goods, such as alcohol
    and tobacco products (NRC 2013).
        Another common theme across legislative efforts over the years has
    involved employment. Policymakers have long debated what, if any, work
    expectations the program should place on recipients (NRC 2013).
    Proponents of work requirements argue that able-bodied Americans should
    work insofar as they are able, whereas opponents argue that work
    requirements effectively penalize the most disadvantaged Americans. In
    early legislation, participants had to register for work, and by 1977,
    certain participants were required to search for a job. Later, as part
    of welfare reforms in 1996, Congress required ABAWDs age 18-49 to work
    (USDA 2018).
        This brief program history frames how researchers and policymakers
    tend to think about SNAP's goals and effectiveness. Reducing hunger and
    food insecurity (defined as ``not having access to sufficient food, or
    food of an adequate quality, to meet one's basic needs'') has always
    been the most prominent program goal (USDA 2023a). For this reason, the
    USDA has tracked food insecurity rates since 1996 and has used these
    trends to assess SNAP's performance. This research generally shows that
    SNAP reduces food insecurity in the short term. But given SNAP's
    negative effects on employment and health--both necessary for upward
    mobility and self-sufficiency-- questions remain over whether SNAP
    effectively reduces food insecurity in the long run.\4\ Although the
    government does not routinely assess nutrition outcomes or employment,
    a body of research suggests that SNAP reduces employment and
    contributes to poor diet (Hoynes and Schanzenbach 2012; East 2018;
    Andreyeva, Tripp, and Schwartz 2015; Mande and Flaherty 2023).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ One study examined increases in SNAP benefits stemming from the
    2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) and found that it
    decreased food insecurity by 2.2 percentage points (Nord and Prell
    2011). However, another study using a different data source found that
    the ARRA SNAP expansions did not affect food insecurity rates for
    youth, nor did higher benefits result in healthier diets (Hudak,
    Racine, and Schulkind 2021). Yet another study using an even different
    data source and methodology found that SNAP participation lowered food
    insecurity for households after receiving 6 months of benefits but did
    not affect very low food security (i.e., a proxy for hunger) among some
    subgroups (USDA 2013). Moreover, it is difficult to ignore the reality
    that despite the exceptional growth in SNAP participation, food
    insecurity rates have held relatively steady over the past 2 decades,
    only fluctuating with the business cycle.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    SNAP Growth and Demographic Changes
        SNAP participation and costs have grown tremendously over the past
    2 decades. The percentage of the U.S. population participating in SNAP
    increased from 7.1 percent in 1980 to 14.9 percent at its peak in 2013
    after the Great Recession. Even with pre-pandemic unemployment rates at
    record lows, one in ten Americans received SNAP in 2019 (Crouse 2022).
    Increases in the costs of the program have tracked closely with
    increases in participation. From 2000 to 2019, SNAP's annual costs grew
    from $23 billion to $57 billion (in 2021 dollars) (USDA 2023b).\5\
    During the pandemic, a number of measures increased SNAP spending on a
    per-person basis, resulting in a near doubling of costs from 2019 to
    2022 (Figure 1). Given these benefit increases, the Congressional
    Budget Office projects that total costs will top $110 billion annually
    through 2033 (CBO 2023).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ SNAP costs were adjusted using the Consumer Price Index for All
    Urban Consumers.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The growth of SNAP is the result of a confluence of changes to both
    policy and economic conditions starting in the mid-to-late 2000s
    (Rachidi 2021). First, changes to the program's administration from
    paper coupons to electronic benefits occurred in the early 2000s, as
    did the reinstatement of eligibility for some immigrants. Second, the
    economic distress the Great Recession caused increased the number of
    low-income Americans eligible for SNAP. Additionally, the 2008 Farm
    Bill changed the program title, adding the term ``nutrition'' among
    other things and liberalizing some operational program components.
    Altogether, these economic and policy changes reduced program stigma
    and extended its reach.
    Figure 1. SNAP Participation and Costs, 2000-22

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              Note: Costs were adjusted for inflation using the Consumer
            Price Index for All Urban Consumers.
              Source: USDA (2023b).

        Perhaps the most consequential effects on SNAP participation during
    this time, however, involved three important policy changes. First, in
    response to the Great Recession, the American Rescue and Recovery Act
    of 2009 waived the ABAWD time limit nationwide from April 2009 through
    September 2010, and many states continued to request waivers in
    subsequent years, citing a struggling economy and limited labor market
    prospects for recipients. However, even as the economy recovered and
    the labor market grew stronger, many states were slow to reinstate the
    ABAWD time limit, often exploiting loopholes in the law (USDA 2019).
        Secondly, many states eliminated SNAP's asset test during this
    time, which the law allowed but states increasingly opted to do after
    the Great Recession (Sykes 2017). Lastly, when the pandemic hit in
    2020, SNAP participation increased due to rising levels of economic
    hardship and pandemic-related emergency measures, such as delaying
    recertification requirements, issuing emergency allotments, and
    suspending the ABAWD work requirement. SNAP also ignored the value of
    over $1 trillion in Federal pandemic stimulus checks, tax credits, and
    unemployment bonuses in determining claimant eligibility, further
    driving caseload increases (Weidinger 2023). Because the Federal public
    health emergency remained in effect well into 2023, SNAP caseloads have
    remained stubbornly high, even though economic conditions have
    improved.
        Despite SNAP's rising caseloads over the past 2 decades, such
    growth has not been uniform across demographic groups. We used SNAP QC
    data to categorize SNAP household heads into mutually exclusive groups
    by parent status, age, and disability status. For our purposes, non-
    disabled individuals include those who were not receiving Federal
    disability assistance.
        As displayed in Figure 2, the composition of SNAP household heads
    has changed considerably over the past 2 decades. The average age of
    household heads has become substantially older, and those household
    heads have become much more likely to be childless, evidenced by an
    increasing share of adults age 50-64 and a decreasing share of parents
    age 18-49. In 1996, adults age 50-64 accounted for only 12.6 percent of
    all household heads, but by 2019, this group's share had more than
    doubled, accounting for over a quarter of all SNAP household heads
    (27.6 percent). Much of the growth of this group is attributable to
    nondisabled adults age 50-64, which has nearly tripled from five
    percent of heads of households in 1996 to 13 percent in 2019.
    Figure 2. SNAP Composition by Age, Disability, and Parental Status
            Among Household Heads, 1996-2019

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              Note: See SNAP QC (n.d.) for a definition of ``disability.''
            Although the data stop identifying individuals with disability
            at age 59, we construct a similar measure of disability for
            those age 60-64. We use age 49 as a cutoff for adults because
            this is the upper age limit at which ABAWD work requirements
            apply. Percentages reflect the share of household heads, not
            all recipients.
              Source: SNAP QC (n.d.) for individual years 1996-2019.

        In contrast, the group of SNAP household heads witnessing the most
    dramatic declines in caseload share were non-disabled parents age 18-
    49, falling from 53.5 percent in 1996 to 33 percent by 2019. Childless
    household heads age 18-49 fluctuated over time but remained a similar
    share in 2019 as in 1996. As a result, among household heads age 18-49,
    the share with children outnumbered those without children three to one
    in 1996, but by 2019, the ratio was 1.8 to 1. The other groups shown in
    Figure 2 fluctuated over time but did not change as dramatically from
    1996 to 2019.
        Notably, when Congress passed the ABAWD work requirement as part of
    welfare reform in 1996, ABAWDs constituted 11.2 percent of SNAP
    household heads, whereas non-disabled 50 to 64 year olds accounted for
    4.9 percent. After 2 decades, non-disabled 50 to 64 year olds now
    constitute a greater share of SNAP household heads than ABAWDs (13.3
    and 12 percent, respectively) despite the much larger age span for
    ABAWDs, raising concerns over the rising recipiency of older, non-
    disabled SNAP household heads.
        In some ways, the growing share of older SNAP recipients simply
    reflects broader demographic trends observed throughout the entire U.S.
    As baby boomers age into retirement and fewer younger Americans have
    children, the country has become progressively older over time--
    evidenced by an increase in the median age by 3.4 years since 2000 and
    fertility falling below the replacement rate (Census Bureau 2022).
        While these population-wide shifts likely play a role in dictating
    SNAP trends, they certainly are not large enough to explain such
    dramatic changes in the composition of the SNAP caseload. As a share of
    the entire poor population (according to the Official Poverty Measure),
    50 to 64 year olds have grown from 15 percent in 1997 to 22 percent in
    2019. But among adults receiving SNAP, 50 to 64 year olds grew from 14
    percent to 28 percent over the same period.\6\ Policy changes--
    including the waiving of work requirements and asset tests--have almost
    certainly affected who did and did not receive SNAP benefits over the
    past 2 decades.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ Authors' calculations using the Current Population Survey. The
    ``poor population'' includes those who are below 125 of the Federal
    poverty line.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Figure 3. Percentage of SNAP Recipients Employed by Group, 1996-2019

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              Note: Parents of ``older'' children are parents who only have
            children age 5 or above. Parents of ``younger'' children are
            those who have any children younger than age 5.
              Source: SNAP QC (n.d.) for individual years 1996-2019.

        The analyses of caseload data show that the SNAP caseload of today
    does not resemble the caseload of previous decades. Around the time of
    welfare reform, parents with children headed the majority of SNAP
    households, yet today less than 40 percent fall into this category.
    Rising recipiency among older and childless adults calls attention to
    their employment and health outcomes, along with SNAP's contribution to
    their challenges.
    Employment and SNAP
        When examining employment levels, we maintained the same age groups
    as in Figure 2, but we disaggregated 18 to 49 year old parents by the
    age of their children to reflect their differing caretaking
    responsibilities and attachment to the labor force. We also excluded
    the oldest cohort of recipients (age 65 and older) from the analysis,
    given that many Americans of this age are retired.
        As displayed in Figure 3, in the most recent years of data,
    slightly less than \1/2\ of SNAP parents age 18-49, regardless of the
    children's age, worked while receiving SNAP, a rate that has increased
    modestly over time.\7\ Older household heads age 50-64 (with or without
    dependents) experienced the lowest employment levels consistently
    across time, with 13 percent reporting employment while receiving SNAP
    in 2019, marginally higher than in 1996.\8\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ For definitions of ``older'' and ``younger'' children, see
    Appendix A.
        \8\ In the most recent year of data, only 11.4 percent of SNAP
    household heads age 50-64 had a dependent in the household.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Moreover, only about one in five household heads age 18-49 without
    dependents reported employment while receiving SNAP in 2019, also
    marginally better over time. Employment levels for SNAP parents have
    increased steadily over time. However, the gains have been small, and
    overall employment levels remain low.
        One reason for such low employment levels was due to a high
    incidence of disability. Undeniably, disabilities and work limitations
    can majorly inhibit stable and gainful employment, and SNAP receipt
    often goes hand in hand with disability benefits. For example, one of
    the nation's largest disability programs, Supplemental Security Income
    (SSI), makes SSI individuals living alone (or with other SSI
    recipients) categorically eligible for SNAP (Trenkamp and Wiseman
    2007). Figure 4 shows that, among SNAP recipients, disabilities were
    more common among adults age 18-49 without dependents and adults age
    50-64 than they were for parents, which partly explains the low
    employment levels observed in Figure 3.
        Older and childless SNAP household heads were much more likely to
    be disabled than younger SNAP adults with children were--and presumably
    less able to work. However, even when considering the employment levels
    for non-disabled SNAP adults, employment rates remained remarkably low.
    As Figure 5 shows, while employment levels have risen over time, still
    only about \1/4\ of non-disabled adults age 18-49 without dependents
    and household heads age 50-64 worked while receiving SNAP (27.8 percent
    and 24.1 percent, respectively) in 2019.
    Figure 4. Percentage of SNAP Recipients Who Receive Disability
            Assistance by Group

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              Note: The rates of disability are pooled across the most
            recent 3 years of data, 2017-19. Disability rates for each
            groups do not vary substantially across time.
              Source: SNAP QC (n.d.) for individual years 2017-19.
    Figure 5. Percentage of non-disabled SNAP Recipients Employed by Group,
            1996-2019

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              Source: SNAP QC (n.d.) for individual years 1996-2019.
    Figure 6. Percentage of SNAP Recipients Who Are Either Disabled,
            Employed, or Engaged in Caretaking

      Panel A. Among 18 to 49 Year Old    Panel B. Among 50 to 64 Year Olds,
            Non-parents, 2003-19                        2003-19

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              Note: See Appendix A for a description of calculations for
            each category. We begin the series in 2003 rather than 1996
            because, for 50 to 64 year olds, our method for identifying
            disabled 60 to 64 year olds is not consistent with the data
            provided in previous years.
              Source: SNAP QC (n.d.) for individual years 2003-19.

        Because SNAP targets low-income households (and employment offers a
    substantial source of income), it is unsurprising that SNAP adults
    generally have low levels of employment. But these data raise the
    question of why so many non-disabled, childless adults remain without
    employment, especially in years when nationwide unemployment rates were
    low and job opportunities were plentiful.
        To gain a fuller understanding of the factors that could be
    contributing to low employment rates--especially among SNAP recipients
    age 18-49 without dependents and those age 50-64--we accounted for the
    share of each group that was either disabled, already employed, or had
    caretaking responsibilities. As Figure 6 Panels A and B show, a sizable
    share of household heads age 18-49 without dependents and household
    heads age 50-64 were not disabled, did not have caretaking
    responsibilities, and lacked employment.\9\ This leaves major shares of
    these groups' status while receiving SNAP unexplained.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ We used a generous definition of caretaking, to include if they
    had (1) a child below age 18 residing in their SNAP-defined household,
    (2) an elderly person age 65 or older in their household, or (3) anyone
    in their household who was disabled.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In sum, our findings suggest that the fastest-growing groups of
    SNAP household heads had low levels of employment across much of the
    past 3 decades. Even after accounting for a variety of factors that
    might explain these low levels of employment, we found that a large
    share of these SNAP recipients were not working, caretaking, or
    disabled.
    Health and SNAP
        Employment and health are interdependent, but it can be difficult
    to disentangle cause and effect. Poor health might cause unemployment,
    but not working might also cause deteriorating health (Hussam, et al.
    2021). SNAP's status as a nutrition benefit that provides income
    support offers a unique opportunity to promote both health and
    employment, potentially spurring a cycle of healthy living and stable
    employment among low-income adults. However, the health status of SNAP
    adults suggests that the program falls well short of promoting good
    health.
        To analyze health outcomes among SNAP adults, we used data from the
    NHIS--a nationally representative health survey. We explored physical
    and mental health outcomes for SNAP adults based on parent and age
    status from 1997 to 2018. We also compared their outcomes to two groups
    of adults not receiving SNAP: low-income non-recipients and high-income
    non-recipients.\10\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ Specifically, we define ``low-income non-recipients'' as those
    who are below 125 percent of the Federal poverty line but do not
    receive SNAP. And we define ``high-income non-recipients'' as those who
    are above 125 percent of the poverty line and do not receive SNAP.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Figure 7. Percentage of Unexplained with Self-Reported Work Limitation,
            1997-2018

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              Note: The unexplained are SNAP recipients who are non-
            disabled, not working, and have no caretaking responsibilities.
            A work limitation is defined as any physical, mental, or
            emotional problem that prevents the respondent from working or
            limits the kind or amount of work that the respondent is able
            to undertake.
              Source: NHIS (n.d.) for individual years 1997-2018.

        First, we explored self-reported health limitations for the
    ``unexplained'' SNAP adults identified in Figure 6. As displayed in
    Figure 7, a large share (between 50 and 60 percent across time) of the
    50 to 64 year old unexplained group reported a health-related work
    limitation, which changed only slightly over time. A smaller percentage
    of unexplained adults age 18-49 without dependents reported a work
    limitation, suggesting that something other than a health issue was
    driving low employment within this group. This suggests that a large
    share of the nonworking 50 to 64 year old group had a health issue that
    limited their employment, while health issues explained a smaller share
    of employment problems for those age 18-49.
        Next, we explored physical and mental health outcomes among all
    adults receiving SNAP to understand the health issues facing the SNAP
    population as a whole. As shown in Figure 8, across age and parent
    profiles, SNAP adults reported high rates of ever having a diet-related
    disease (including diagnosed with diabetes, heart disease, stroke, or
    hypertension) (CDC 2022)--especially recipients age 50-64. Between 60
    to 70 percent of this group reported ever having a diet-related disease
    over the past 2 decades; even among SNAP parents of young children,
    almost 20 percent reported ever having a diet-related disease in 2018.
        Figure 9 displays how, for each age and parent profile, ever having
    a diet-related disease was much more common among SNAP recipients
    compared to low- and high-income non-recipients (non-recipients below
    125 percent of the Federal poverty line and non-recipients above 125
    percent of the poverty line, respectively). For example, 65 percent of
    50 to 64 year old SNAP recipients reported having at least one diet-
    related disease, whereas only 44 percent of similarly aged high-income
    non-recipients and 57 percent of low-income non-recipients reported
    having a diet-related disease. That diet-related disease was much more
    common among SNAP recipients than other low-income adults suggests that
    SNAP serves a particularly unhealthy population.
    Figure 8. Percentage of SNAP Adults with Diet-Related Disease, 1997-
            2018

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              Note: Results are 3 year running averages. Diet-related
            disease is defined as ever being diagnosed with diabetes, non-
            congenital heart disease, stroke, or hypertension.
              Source: NHIS (n.d.) for individual years 1997-2018.
    Figure 9. Diet-Related Disease by SNAP Status and Age and Parent
            Profiles, 2014-18

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              Note: Diet-related disease is defined as ever being diagnosed
            with diabetes, non-congenital heart disease, stroke, or
            hypertension. The figure reflects pooled averages of diet-
            related disease from 2014 to 2018. All differences between SNAP
            recipients and the two comparison groups are statistically
            significant at the 0.05 level.
              Source: NHIS (n.d.) for individual years 2014-18.
    Figure 10. Percentage of SNAP Recipients with Obesity, 1997-2018

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              Note: Results are 3 year running averages. Obesity is defined
            as having a body mass index of 30 or greater.
              Source: NHIS (n.d.) for individual years 1997-2018.

        We observed the same pattern for obesity rates. Like U.S. adults
    broadly, rates of obesity among adults receiving SNAP have increased
    over the past 2 decades. As shown in Figure 10, among SNAP adults age
    18-49 with children and SNAP adults age 50-64, obesity rates at the
    time of the survey increased from approximately 30 percent in the late
    1990s to around 40 percent by 2018. But the group of household heads
    experiencing the most rapid rise in obesity has been adults age 18-49
    without dependents, whose rate has grown from 22 percent to 34 percent,
    a 55 percent increase.
        Although obesity plagues U.S. adults of all socioeconomic statuses,
    SNAP adults were much more likely to be obese than were low-income non-
    recipients and high-income non-recipients, suggesting again that there
    is something uniquely substandard about the health status of adults
    receiving SNAP. As Figure 11 displays, over \1/3\ (34 percent) of SNAP
    adults age 18-49 without dependents were obese, while only 20 percent
    of low-income non-recipients and 23 percent of high-income non-
    recipients were obese.
        Unsurprisingly, given SNAP recipients' high rates of diet-related
    disease and obesity, a relatively large percentage of SNAP adults,
    especially those age 50-64, rated their health as fair or poor at the
    time of the survey. As Figure 12 shows, this trend improved over time
    for the oldest cohort of SNAP recipients, but still \1/2\ reported fair
    or poor health by 2018. Consistent with the other health measures, SNAP
    adults also reported fair or poor health at higher rates than non-
    recipients did, as shown in Figure 13.
        Many of the health problems facing low-income Americans--and SNAP
    recipients in particular--are not merely physical. Figure 14 presents
    the share of SNAP adults who reported feeling either ``hopeless'' or
    ``worthless'' in the 30 days preceding the survey. We focused on these
    two indicators because research has shown these to be two of the
    strongest predictors of severe mental health issues (Shand, et al.
    2015). For SNAP adults age 50-64, these mental health issues subsided
    slightly over time as more people in this age category joined SNAP, but
    still 35 percent reported these feelings in 2018--a higher percentage
    than any other group. Like other health measures, SNAP adults reported
    higher rates than non-recipients did, as shown in Figure 15.
    Figure 11. Obesity by SNAP Status and Age and Parent Profiles, 2014-18

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              Note: Results are averages across the past 5 years of data
            (2014-18). All differences between SNAP recipients and the two
            comparison groups are statistically significant at the 0.05
            level.
              Source: NHIS (n.d.) for individual years 2014-18.
    Figure 12. Percentage of SNAP Recipients That Rate Their Health Status
            as Fair or Poor, 1997-2018

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              Note: Results are 3 year running averages. Fair and poor
            health status are the two lowest self-assessments on a five-
            point Likert scale, ranging from ``poor'' to ``excellent.''
              Source: NHIS (n.d.) for individual years 1997-2018.
    Figure 13. Fair or Poor Health Status by SNAP Status and Age and Parent
            Profiles, 2014-18

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              Note: Results are averages across the past 5 years of data
            (2014-18). All differences between SNAP recipients and the two
            comparison groups are statistically significant at the 0.05
            level.
              Source: NHIS (n.d.) for individual years 2014-18.
    Figure 14. Percentage of SNAP Recipients Who Report Feeling Hopeless or
            Worthless in the Past Month, 1997-2018

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              Note: Results are 3 year running averages.
              Source: NHIS (n.d.) for individual years 1997-2018.
    Figure 15. Feelings of Hopelessness or Worthlessness by SNAP Status and
            Age and Parent Profiles, 2014-18

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              Note: Results are averages across the past 5 years of data
            (2014-18). All differences between SNAP recipients and the two
            comparison groups are statistically significant at the 0.05
            level.
              Source: NHIS (n.d.) for individual years 2014-18.

        Altogether, these data show that physical and mental health
    problems were common among adults receiving SNAP and likely contributed
    to their relatively low employment levels over the past 2 decades.
    These data also raise questions about the degree to which SNAP might be
    exacerbating health issues among low-income adults by contributing to
    poor nutrition and discouraging employment. It is cause for concern
    that almost 70 percent of SNAP adults age 50-64 reported ever having a
    diet-related disease, and 40 percent reported feeling ``hopeless'' or
    ``worthless'' in recent years.
        Whether SNAP causes poor health or attracts people with already
    poor health remains up for debate. However, the persistently high rates
    of health problems among adults receiving SNAP--along with enduring
    gaps between recipients and non-recipients--suggest that SNAP is
    falling short on leading participants toward good health and may even
    make matters worse by supporting non-nutritious diets for millions of
    disadvantaged adults.
    Conclusion
        SNAP is one of the nation's largest safety-net programs,
    transferring more than $100 billion per year to low-income households.
    Although research shows that SNAP may reduce food insecurity in the
    short run, our results document low employment levels and poor--and, in
    the case of disease and obesity rates, worsening--health status,
    raising questions about the program's long-term effectiveness.
    Specifically, we find that two of the fastest-growing groups of SNAP
    recipients--50 to 64 year olds and adults age 18-49 without
    dependents--face the worst health and employment outcomes.
        Approximately \1/2\ of household heads age 50-64 and \1/3\ of
    adults age 18-49 without dependents were disabled while receiving SNAP.
    However, even when we exclude disabled recipients from our
    calculations, employment levels remained low. In 2019, at a time of
    historically low unemployment in the U.S. economy, only 28 percent of
    ABAWD household heads worked while receiving SNAP, and only 24 percent
    of non-disabled 50 to 64 year olds worked. Further, we found that
    caretaking responsibilities played a limited role in depressing labor
    force participation among these groups. We found that three in ten SNAP
    household heads age 50-64 and 43 percent of those age 18-49 without
    dependents were not working and were neither caretaking nor disabled.
    In other words, their inability to work remains unexplained.
        One reason we discovered for a large share of unexplained SNAP
    adults was poor health that did not rise to the level of disability,
    according to data from the NHIS. Alarmingly, more than \2/3\ of
    unexplained 50 to 64 year olds reported a health problem that limited
    their ability to work. However, our analyses also found that these
    health problems were not limited to unexplained recipients. SNAP adults
    consistently reported high rates of diet-related disease and obesity
    and viewed their health poorly. When compared to the rest of U.S.
    adults--both low-income and high-income non-recipients--SNAP recipients
    consistently reported higher rates of physical and mental health
    problems.
        These findings reveal a concerning picture of SNAP. One of SNAP's
    main goals is to improve nutrition for low-income households by giving
    them additional resources to afford a healthy diet. And proper
    nutrition is a crucial ingredient to helping people be healthy so that
    they can work and escape poverty. Put simply, the poor employment and
    health outcomes associated with SNAP adults suggest that the program is
    failing in both regards.
        Some might argue that SNAP benefit levels are insufficient for
    households to afford a healthy diet, requiring that SNAP participants
    purchase unhealthy food because they cannot afford to eat an
    appropriate diet. However, little evidence exists to support this
    contention when properly scrutinized. Contrary to conventional wisdom,
    research shows that when measured properly (per nutrient or per
    serving, for example), healthy foods actually cost less than unhealthy
    foods (Carlson and Frazao 2012; Savoie-Roskos and Durward n.d.). In
    fact, research suggests that people who eat ultra-processed foods
    (common in SNAP participant diets) on average consume 500 more calories
    per day than those who eat diets full of unprocessed foods such as
    fruits and vegetables (Hall, et al. 2019).
        Additionally, over the long run, diets full of ultra-processed
    foods have substantial secondary costs, such as high medical costs and
    employment disruptions due to poor health (Savoie-Roskos and Durward
    n.d.). Collectively, this shows that unhealthy diets like those common
    among SNAP participants are likely more costly in the short run and
    definitely more costly in the long run than are healthy diets rich in
    minimally processed foods.
        SNAP is due for reauthorization in 2023 as part of the farm bill,
    and policymakers must act to address the myriad health and employment
    challenges facing SNAP recipients. With the proper reforms,
    policymakers can maintain SNAP as a vital income support while also
    addressing the alarmingly low employment rates and poor health outcomes
    of its participants. The first priority must be to place commonsense
    nutritional standards on SNAP, similar to those that already apply to
    other Federal food assistance programs such as the National School
    Lunch Program and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women,
    Infants, and Children. This can start with excluding sugary beverages
    from the list of eligible food items for purchase with SNAP benefits.
    The next priority must be to strengthen existing work requirements for
    ABAWDs and extend the positive aspects of work requirements to other
    SNAP populations (Rachidi 2023).
    Acknowledgments
        Special thanks to Antonia Bleser for her research and writing
    assistance and to Matt Weidinger for his review and comments.
    About the Authors
        Angela Rachidi is a senior fellow and Rowe Scholar with AEI's
    Center on Opportunity and Social Mobility, where she studies government
    policies and programs aimed at helping low-income Americans.
        Thomas O'Rourke is a research assistant with AEI's Center on
    Opportunity and Social Mobility, where he supports research on social
    capital and economic mobility.
    About AEI's Center on Opportunity and Social Mobility
        The Center on Opportunity and Social Mobility, directed by Scott
    Winship, conducts rigorous research and develops evidence-based
    policies aimed at expanding opportunity in America by reducing
    entrenched poverty, increasing upward mobility, and rebuilding social
    capital.
    About AEI's Perspectives on Opportunity
        AEI's Perspectives on Opportunity is a policy report series
    published by the Center on Opportunity and Social Mobility (COSM).
    Contributions to this series include empirical and theoretical analysis
    of issues related to opportunity in the United States and evidence-
    based policy proposals to expand opportunity, promote upward mobility,
    and strengthen social capital. COSM Deputy Director Kevin Corinth is
    the editor of Perspectives on Opportunity.
    Appendix A. Data and Methods
        For all original analyses in this report, we primarily rely on two
    different data sources. The first is the U.S. Department of
    Agriculture's (USDA) Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
    Quality Control (QC) data, an administrative dataset containing tens of
    thousands of observations each year. The second data source we use is
    the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), which is a yearly study
    that has been conducted since 1963, asking a representative sample of
    Americans about a variety of health and employment outcomes.
        In this appendix, we give a detailed account of each dataset,
    including any methodological decisions that we made in cleaning and
    preparing the data for our analyses. We then go through a series of
    terms that we use throughout the report, clearly articulating our
    definition of each term within each dataset. We begin with the NHIS.
    National Health Interview Survey
        The NHIS, conducted yearly by the Centers for Disease Control and
    Prevention, asks respondents a variety of different health- and
    employment-related questions. Beginning in 2019, the survey underwent a
    significant redesign, which makes comparability with prior years
    difficult. However, the survey was conducted using consistent methods
    from 1997 to 2018, making it an optimal source for examining yearly
    trends in health outcomes for various populations. The sample sizes are
    sufficiently large to break out by SNAP recipiency, age, and parental
    status.
        We extracted our sample of NHIS variables from the University of
    Minnesota's Integrated Public Use Microdata Series. Our subset of
    variables includes a standard set of demographic and income variables,
    a variety of variables asking respondents about their physical and
    mental health status, and household-level indicators of SNAP receipt.
    SNAP QC Data
        As part of SNAP's administration, the program implemented a quality
    control system to ensure that SNAP recipients are receiving the proper
    amount of benefits given their income and household size. A random
    sample of households is selected each year to participate in a quality
    control review, in which a SNAP caseworker meets face-to-face with the
    randomly selected household. Throughout this review, caseworkers ask
    recipients a variety of questions about their employment, income,
    household size, and participation in other government programs.
        Each year, the USDA publishes anonymized data collected through
    this process in the form of SNAP QC data. Because these data are
    collected directly by the USDA and administered face-to-face, it is
    viewed as the authoritative data source on SNAP receipt. However, due
    to a variety of different coding discrepancies and survey methodologies
    over the past 2 decades, the data are difficult to compare across time.
        In certain years, the administrators of SNAP QC data warn those
    using the data about potential coding errors or inconsistencies. On
    some variables, SNAP QC data recommend either against using a given
    variable--evidence that the variable was coded so inconsistently that
    it is totally unreliable--or that users take caution when using a
    variable. Although we never used any variable that the SNAP QC data
    recommend against using, we did, in some cases, use variables for which
    the QC data recommended caution. In each case we did so, we detailed
    what measures we took to ensure that our data were accurate.
        We also dropped some observations from the data. Most notably, we
    dropped those who were deemed ineligible for SNAP as a result of the
    review process. These observations are households that, as a result of
    being reviewed, no longer qualify for SNAP and lose their SNAP
    benefits. After 2002, QC data administrators dropped these observations
    from the sample before releasing the public use data. Before 2002,
    there were usually only a few hundred such observations that we
    dropped. Additionally, we dropped households for which there was no
    identifying information--such as head of household status or
    employment--again, resulting in a negligible number of observations
    dropped per year.
        We now turn to our definitions of each term that we employ
    throughout the report, highlighting any important methodological
    decisions that we made and any definitional discrepancies between our
    two data sources.
    Disability
        The NHIS data have asked respondents about their disability status
    every year from 1997 to 2018. We define an individual as disabled if
    they report receiving Supplemental Security Income (SSI) or Social
    Security Disability Insurance (SSDI). The NHIS asked respondents four
    questions about whether they receive SSI or SSDI, and if they answered
    in the affirmative in any of those questions, then they are categorized
    as disabled. Conversely, we refer to any respondent who did not receive
    SSI or SSDI as non-disabled.
        The SNAP QC data, on the other hand, define disability slightly
    differently. From 2012 onward, SNAP QC defines ``non-elderly
    individuals identified as disabled using receipt of SSI or a
    combination of hours worked, work registration status, receipt of
    Social Security, veterans' benefits, or workers' compensation, and/or
    unit medical expense deduction.'' For the full list of criteria used by
    the QC data to identify disability, refer to Appendix B in SNAP QC
    data's technical documentation (Cornquist, Lauffer, and Vigil 2020).
        Curiously, from 2007 to 2011, SNAP QC data documentation does not
    include individual-level disability identifiers, but the data files
    available for download include consistent measures of individual-level
    disability identifiers. After performing a series of checks, it appears
    that SNAP QC retroactively coded disability for these years just as
    they did from 2012 onward. From 2003 to 2006, however, the data files
    do not have individual-level disability information, so we
    reconstructed SNAP QC's measure of disability, replicating their
    methods with the given information. From 1996 to 2002, SNAP measured
    disability in a nearly identical manner, using information from a
    similar combination of programs.
        Importantly, SNAP QC data identify disability only among the
    nonelderly population--therefore excluding those age 60 and older.
    Because we are interested in the employment trends of those between age
    50 and 64, we create individual-level disability identifiers for heads
    of households between age 60 and 64. If an individual between age 60
    and 64 receives SSI or veterans' benefits, then we also count them as
    disabled. And if an individual is age 60 or 61 and receives Social
    Security, then we count them as disabled. Our justification for the
    latter is that SNAP QC data do not uniquely identify SSDI receipt, so
    we assume that all Social Security recipients age 60 and 61 are
    receiving SSDI. Despite our relatively simple measure of disability for
    those age 60 to 64, our analyses show that disability rates for this
    group are similar to external sources of data and are consistent with
    disability incidence for those below 60.
        However, because of methodological differences in how the QC
    collected data on disability before 2003, we are unable to consistently
    measure disability for those 60 and older before 2003. Therefore, our
    analyses of the unexplained (Figure 6, Panels A and B) only extend back
    to 2003.
        With the SNAP QC data, we also define anyone not meeting any of the
    above criteria as ``non-disabled.'' Although the NHIS and SNAP QC data
    employ slightly different definitions of ``disability,'' we contend
    that these differences do not affect any of our conclusions. We also
    never use the two different definitions interchangeably--using the NHIS
    definition of disability when referring to health outcomes and using
    the QC definition of disability when referring to demographic changes
    or employment outcomes.
    Employment and Labor Force Participation
        The NHIS asks respondents about their employment status and gives
    them five possible responses: (1) working for pay at a job, (2) working
    without pay at a job, (3) with job but not at work, (4) unemployed, or
    (5) not in the labor force. We define anyone who responds one, two,
    three, or four as a part of the labor force and define anyone who
    responds one, two, or three as employed.
        In most years, the SNAP QC data recommend caution when using their
    employment variables, because there are often inconsistencies between
    their two employment variables and between them and other income
    variables. Because the sample sizes in the SNAP QC data are large (and
    without information on whether inconsistencies were more or less likely
    among the employed), we took a conservative approach when navigating
    these potential data issues, dropping all observations for which we
    witnessed significant inconsistencies between these variables.
        Specifically, we dropped all observations that do not have
    employment data. We also dropped any observation for which one
    employment variable indicated that the observation was employed and the
    other employment variable indicated that they were not employed. We did
    not drop any observation based on inconsistencies between employment
    status and income, as we were only interested in trends in employment,
    not income.
        After dropping these observations, we define any observation as
    employed if they claim to be working for at least 1 hour per week. And
    we define any observation as being in the labor force if they are
    employed or actively looking for work.
    Head of Household
        When examining demographic or employment changes using the QC data,
    we are only interested in trends among adults. Although the share of
    children on SNAP has been growing over time, the scope of this report
    was to review the health and employment outcomes of adults on SNAP.
    Specifically, our focus on health and employment outcomes motivated us
    to narrow our focus to adults.
        We conducted several tests to ensure that the heads of SNAP
    households were representative of all adults receiving SNAP, and our
    results were not sensitive to such changes.
    The Unexplained
        Using the SNAP QC data, we define the unexplained as an individual
    between age 50 and 64 who is not employed, not disabled, and not
    caretaking. See above for our definitions of employment and disability.
        We define an individual as caretaking if they have (1) a child
    below age 18 residing in their SNAP-defined household, (2) an elderly
    person age 65 or older in their household, or (3) anyone in their
    household who is disabled.
        We also progressively account for disability, employment, and
    caretaking, meaning that we first count the overall share of the given
    group of recipients who are disabled. Then, among those who are non-
    disabled, we account for the share who are employed. Then, among those
    who are non-disabled and unemployed, we account for the share who are
    caretaking. The remainder--those not disabled, unemployed, and not
    caretaking, are the unexplained. Therefore, the shares reflected in
    Figure 6 are not meant to be representative of the overall disability,
    employment, and caretaking responsibilities in each group.
        We also replicated the unexplained in the NHIS data. For this, we
    use the NHIS definition of disability and employment. (See above.) And
    because the NHIS does not allow us to identify individuals who have
    caretaking responsibilities for elderly or disabled household members,
    an individual has caretaking responsibilities only if they have a child
    in the household under age 18.

                                   References

        Andreyeva, Tatiana, Amanda S. Tripp, and Marlene B. Schwartz. 2015.
     ``Dietary Quality of Americans by Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
     Program Participation Status: A Systematic Review.'' American Journal
     of Preventive Medicine 49, no. 4 (October): 594-604.
        Carlson, Andrea, and Elizabeth Frazao. 2012. ``Are Healthy Foods
     Really More Expensive? It Depends on How You Measure the Price.'' U.S.
     Department of Agriculture. May. https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/
     publications/44678/19980_eib96.pdf.
        CBO (Congressional Budget Office). 2023. ``Baseline Projections--
     Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.'' February. https://
     www.cbo.gov/system/files?file=2023-02/51312-2023-02-snap.pdf.
        CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). 2022. ``Poor
     Nutrition.'' September 8. https://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/resources/
     publications/factsheets/nutrition.htm.
        Census Bureau. 2022. ``Nation Continues to Age as It Becomes More
     Diverse.'' June. https://www.census.gov/newsroom/pressreleases/2022/
     population-estimates-characteristics.html.
        Cornquist, Kathryn, Sarah Lauffer, and Alma Vigil. 2020. ``Technical
     Documentation for the Fiscal Year 2019 Supplemental Nutrition
     Assistance Program Quality Control Database and the QC Minimodel.''
     December. https://snapqcdata.net/sites/default/files/2020-12/
     FY%202019%20SNAP%20QC%20Technical%20Documentation.pdf.
        Crouse, Gilbert. 2022. ``Welfare Indicators and Risk Factors, 21st
     Report to Congress.'' Department of Health and Human Services. Office
     of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. April 26.
     https://aspe.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/
     9dfe164f4039593c67bb5c3023b17871/21st-indicators-report-appendix-
     tables.pdf.
        East, Chloe. 2018. ``Immigrants' Labor Supply Response to Food Stamp
     Access.'' Labour Economics 51, no. C (April): 202-26. https://
     www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0927537118300058.
        Hall, Kevin D., Alexis Ayuketah, Robert Brychta, Hongyi Cai, Thomas
     Cassimatis, Kong Y. Chen, Stephanie T. Chung, Elise Costa, Amber
     Courville, Valerie Darcey, Laura A. Fletcher, Ciaran G. Forde, Ahmed M.
     Gharib, Juen Guo, Rebecca Howard, Paule V. Joseph, Suzanne McGehee,
     Ronald Ouwerkerk, Klaudia Raisinger, Irene Rozga, Michael Stagliano,
     Mary Walter, Peter J. Walter, Shanna Yang, and Megan Zhou. 2019.
     ``Ultra-Processed Diets Cause Excess Calorie Intake and Weight Gain: An
     Inpatient Randomized Controlled Trial of Ad Libitum Food Intake.''
     Clinical and Translational Report 30 (May 16): 67-77. https://
     www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/fulltext/S1550-4131(19)30248-7.
        Hoynes, Hilary Williamson, and Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach. 2012.
     ``Work Incentives and the Food Stamp Program.'' Journal of Public
     Economics 96, no. 1 (February): 151-62. https://www.sciencedirect.com/
     science/article/abs/pii/S0047272711001472.
        Hudak, Katelin M., Elizabeth F. Racine, and Lisa Schulkind. 2021.
     ``An Increase in SNAP Benefits Did Not Impact Food Security or Diet
     Quality in Youth.'' Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics
     121 (March): 507-19. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33187930.
        Hussam, Reshmaan N., Erin M. Kelley, Gregory V. Lane, and Fatima T.
     Zahra. 2021. ``The Psychosocial Value of Employment.'' National Bureau
     of Economic Research. June. https://www.nber.org/papers/w28924.
        Johnson, Lyndon B. 1964. ``Remarks upon Signing the Food Stamp
     Act.'' American Presidency Project. August. https://
     www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/remarks-upon-signing-the-food-stamp-
     act.
        Mande, Jerold, and Grace Flaherty. 2023. ``Supplemental Nutrition
     Assistance Program as a Health Intervention.'' Current Opinion in
     Pediatrics 35, no. 1 (February 1): 33-38. https://
     pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36354297.
        NHIS (National Health Interview Survey). (n.d.). Integrated Public
     Use Microdata Series. https://healthsurveys.ipums.org.
        Nixon, Richard. 1969. ``Special Message to the Congress Recommending
     a Program to End Hunger in America.'' American Presidency Project. May
     6. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/special-message-the-
     congress-recommending-program-end-hunger-america.
        Nord, Mark, and Mark Prell. 2011. ``Food Security Improved Following
     the 2009 ARRA Increase in SNAP Benefits.'' U.S. Department of
     Agriculture. April. https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/44837/
     7469_err116.pdf?v=5707.1.
        NRC (National Research Council). 2013. Supplemental Nutrition
     Assistance Program: Examining the Evidence to Define Benefit Adequacy,
     ed. Julie A. Caswell and Ann L. Yaktine. Washington, D.C.: National
     Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13485.
        Rachidi, Angela. 2023. ``A 21st-Century SNAP: Considerations for the
     2023 Farm Bill.'' American Enterprise Institute. February 23. https://
     www.aei.org/research-products/report/a-21st-century-snap-considerations-
     for-the-2023-farm-bill.
        Rachidi, Angela. 2021. ``A 20-Year Look at SNAP Participation and
     Costs.'' American Enterprise Institute. October 7. https://www.aei.org/
     research-products/report/a-20-year-look-at-snap-participation-and-
     costs.
        Savoie-Roskos, Mateja, and Carrie Durward. n.d. ``Does Health Eating
     Cost More?'' Utah State University. https://extension.usu.edu/nutrition/
     research/does-healthy-eating-cost-more.
        Shand, Fiona L., Judy Proudfoot, Michael J. Player, Andrea Fogarty,
     Erin Whittle, Kay Wilhelm, Dusan Hadzi-Pavlovic, Isabel McTigue,
     Michael Spurrier, and Helen Christensen. 2015. ``What Might Interrupt
     Men's Suicide? Results from an Online Survey of Men.'' BMJ Open 5, no.
     10 (October): e008172. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/
     PMC4611172.
        SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program). (n.d.). Quality
     Control Access Data. https://snapqcdata.net/datafiles.
        Sykes, Russell. 2017. ``Viewing the Food Stamp Program Through a 44-
     Year Lens.'' In A Safety Net That Works: Improving Federal Programs for
     Low-Income Americans, ed. Robert Doar. Washington, D.C.: AEI Press.
     https://www.aei.org/research-products/book/a-safety-net-that-works-
     improving-federal-programs-for-low-income-americans.
        Trenkamp, Brad, and Michael Wiseman. 2007. ``The Food Stamp Program
     and Supplemental Security Income.'' Social Security Bulletin 67, no. 4.
     https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v67n4/67n4p71.html.
        USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2023a. ``Food Security in the
     US.'' January 10. https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-
     assistance/food-security-in-the-u-s.
        ___. 2023b. ``SNAP Data Tables.'' Updated March 10. https://
     www.fns.usda.gov/pd/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap.
        ___. 2019. ``Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Requirements
     for Able-Bodied Adults Without Dependents.'' Federal Register 84, no.
     22 (February): 980-93. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/
     02/01/2018-28059/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-requirements-
     for-able-bodied-adults-without-dependents.
        ___. 2018. ``A Short History of SNAP.'' September 11. https://
     www.fns.usda.gov/snap/short-history-snap.
        ___. 2016. ``Foods Typically Purchased by Supplemental Nutrition
     Assistance Program Households.'' November 18. https://www.fns.usda.gov/
     snap/foods-typically-purchased-supplemental-nutrition-assistance-
     program-snap-households.
        ___. 2013. ``Measuring the Effect of Supplemental Nutrition
     Assistance Program on Food Security.'' August. https://fns-
     prod.azureedge.us/sites/default/files/Measuring2013.pdf.
        Weidinger, Matt. 2023. ``Unemployment Is Low, Welfare High. What
     Gives?'' Wall Street Journal. March 20. https://www.aei.org/op-eds/
     unemployment-is-low-welfare-high-what-gives..

              Robert Doar, President; Scott Winship, Director of the AEI
            Center on Opportunity and Social Mobility; Kevin Corinth,
            Editor, Perspectives on Opportunity.
              The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) is a nonpartisan,
            nonprofit, 501(c)(3) educational organization and does not take
            institutional positions on any issues. The views expressed here
            are those of the author(s).
              2023 by the American Enterprise
            Institute for Public Policy Research. All rights reserved.
                                    Report 2

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    [https://risk.lexisnexis.com/-/media/files/government/case%20study/
    lnrs%20true
    %20cost%20of%20fraud_snap%20report%20pdf.pdf]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    2020 LexisNexis' Risk Solutions
    True Cost of FraudTM Study for Supplemental [Nutrition]
            Assistance Program (SNAP)_Mobile and Web Channels Drive Bot and
            Fraud Attacks
    Overview
    Background and Objectives
        LexisNexis' Risk Solutions conducted a research study
    that can drive government segment revenue growth via thought
    leadership, particularly in the Social Services area with the
    Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) as an initial target.
    This True Cost of FraudTM Study for SNAP serves as a model
    framework by informing the level and impact of fraud on SNAP agencies,
    including the challenges, volume, and cost, as well as the resources
    that agencies utilize to detect and prevent fraud.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Fraud Definitions:

       Account takeover by unauthorized persons

       Fraudulent transactions due to identity fraud, SNAP benefits
            are exchanged for cash (trafficking--generally involving two
            parties--typically a household and a SNAP retailer)

       A household intentionally lies to the state to qualify for
            benefits or to get more benefits than they are supposed to
            receive

        The LexisNexis Fraud MultiplierTM cost:

       Estimates the total amount of loss a firm incurs based on
            the actual dollar value of a fraudulent transaction
    Methodology
        LexisNexis' Risk Solutions partnered with KS&R, a global
    market research firm, to collect the survey responses for this research
    study.

       Data was collected on line and by phone in August 2022 with
            a total of 74 completions in the United States.

       Respondents included mostly senior executives responsible
            for fraud mitigation and decisions with SNAP.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Type                                Region
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
     County    State   NERO    MARO    SERO    MWRO    MPRO    SWRO     WRO
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
         49       25      15       9       9      18      12       4       7
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

              States: Alaska, Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida,
            Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas,
            Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan,
            Montana, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Vermont,
            Virgin Islands, Washington, D.C.
              Counties from the ten states (California, Colorado,
            Minnesota, New York, New Jersey, North Carolina, North Dakota,
            Ohio, Virginia, Wisconsin) that delegate to the county level:
            Alameda, Albany, Anoka, Arapahoe, Arlington, Bergen, Boulder,
            Bronx, Buncombe, Burleigh, Burlington, Butte, Cass, Clermont,
            Cuyahoga, Dakota, Dane, Denver, Douglas, Durham, El Paso,
            Fairfax, Grand Forks, Hamilton, Hennepin, Henrico, Hudson,
            Kenosha, Kings, Milwaukee, Morris, Onondaga, Onslow, Pender,
            Ramsey, Richmond, San Bernardino, San Francisco, Somerset, St.
            Louis, Suffolk, Summit, Wake, Ward, Warren, Williams
    Significant Differences
        Statistical significance is determined by a set level of confidence
    sought in an estimate. Results are considered statistically significant
    if the observed difference is large based on sample size(s) and
    confidence level. This means the observed difference in the estimates
    is extreme enough to conclude with confidence (usually 90% or 95%) that
    the results would not have occurred by chance and a real difference
    between them exists. For this study with 74 completions at the total
    level, the sampling error is +/- 11.4% in order to highlight two
    findings as statistically different.
        Directional significance, commonly referred to as practical
    significance, on the other hand, is when the magnitude of the
    difference is large enough to be meaningful given the situation, though
    not statistically different.
        Comparing the two, note that statistical significance relates to
    existence of a difference, while directional significance refers to the
    meaningfulness/magnitude of a difference. No statistical test can
    determine directional significance, as it varies greatly depending on
    the area of study, issue at hand, etc., and instead, must be decided
    upon by those using the results. When reporting on directional
    significance, it is often helpful, especially when dealing with
    extremely large/small base sizes, to set a predetermined threshold
    agreed upon in collaboration with the client and apply to all results.
        A finite population correction may be applied to the margin of
    error when the sample size is at least 5% of the overall population.
    While this is the case for the total sample relative to the number of
    states and counties as we achieved just shy of 10%, the difference in
    significance testing outcomes for reporting is minimal. In an effort to
    simplify reporting and explanation for publication, the finite
    population correction is ignored.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

          Summary of Key Findings

      #1:  Digital transactions channels, particularly mobile devices and
                apps, are contributing to the cost of fraud across SNAP
                agencies.

            Every $1 value of lost benefits through fraud actually costs
                SNAP agencies $3.72 based on additional costs related to
                labor and administrative activities. The cost of fraud is
                higher for agencies that have more mobile channel
                applications.

      #2:  Inadvertent household errors (IHEs) and suspicious cases not
                worked because of limited resources represent the majority
                of SNAP fraud losses. Malicious bots and the mobile channel
                are influencing this.

            Identity-related fraud represents over half of fraud losses.
                The mobile channel continues to be a challenge, with
                agencies that have an above average volume of mobile
                transactions also reporting a higher number of fraud
                attacks per month.

      #3:  Verifying household composition, identifying malicious bots,
                address verification, and identity verification are among a
                number of challenges SNAP agencies have with online and
                mobile channel applications.

            Verifying identities is directionally more of a challenge with
                mobile channel applications compared to those via online.

      #4:  There is limited use of best-practice fraud mitigation methods
                involving a multi-layered solution approach and the
                integration of fraud solutions with cybersecurity and
                digital customer experience operations.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Key Findings 1
        Every $1 value of lost benefits through fraud actually costs SNAP
    agencies $3.72 based on additional costs related to labor and
    administrative activities. The cost of fraud is higher for agencies
    that have more mobile channel applications.

       While in-person is the single largest channel for SNAP
            application submissions and Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT)
            card use, the on line and mobile channels contribute to the
            cost of fraud.

       The volume of applications through the mobile channel is
            still emerging, though fraudsters have increased their focus on
            mobile devices and mobile apps during the past 12 months.
    Distribution of Direct Fraud Costs
              For every $1 value of benefits lost through fraud, it
            actually costs SNAP agencies $3.72.

        This is based on the LexisNexis Fraud Multiplier, which
    demonstrates that the cost of fraud is more than just the lost value,
    but also additional costs.

        Agencies that have an above average level of applications through
    the mobile channel have a higher cost of fraud ($4.40), with nearly
    half of costs related to internal labor.
    Distribution of Direct Fraud Costs

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              Survey Q5E: Adding to 100%, what percentage do each of the
            following direct fraud costs account for your total SNAP fraud
            losses during the past year?
    Distribution of SNAP Applications and Fraud Across Channels
              In-person is the single largest channel for submitting SNAP
            applications, though online applications represent just over
            \1/4\ of these transactions and account for a similar level of
            SNAP fraud while mobile channel fraud is growing.

        Mobile channel submissions are limited but are likely to grow given
    the increased use of mobile transactions in the larger market. Mobile
    apps account for the majority of submissions and fraud through this
    channel, with 61% of agencies that allow these types of transactions
    saying that fraud has increased through them during the past 12 months.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              Survey Q1: Please indicate the percentage of SNAP
            applications submitted over the past 12 months across each of
            the following channels used by your agency.
              Survey Q3: You indicated that approximately [INSERT# FROM
            Q1_4] % of your agency's total number of SNAP applications
            during the past 12 months were submitted through a mobile
            device. Of that [INSERT # FROM Q1_4] %, what is the
            distribution of applications through the following:
              Survey Q8: Adding to 100%, please indicate the percent of
            fraud costs generated through each of the following channels
            currently used for SNAP applications (as a percentage of total
            annual fraud losses).
              Survey Q11: For SNAP applications conducted through a mobile
            device or mobile app, what percentage do the following account
            for applications fraud?
              Survey Q11B: Has fraud with applications through mobile
            devices or mobile apps increased, decreased or stayed during
            the past 12 months?
    Distribution of EBT Card Transactions and Fraud Across Channels
              In-person is also the single largest channel used for
            Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) transactions, though online
            and mobile use contributes to EBT card fraud just as much as
            in-person use.
    Distribution of Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) Card Transactions
            and Fraud Costs Across Channels in the Past 12 Months

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              Survey Q4: Please distribute 100 points to indicate the
            approximate percentage that total transactions/purchases during
            the past 12 months were completed through the following
            methods.
              Survey Q9: Adding to 100%, please indicate the distribution
            of fraud across the following types of EBT card transactions
            during the past 12 months.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Key Findings 2
        Inadvertent household errors (IHEs) and suspicious cases not worked
    because of limited resources represent the majority of SNAP fraud.
    Malicious bots and the mobile channel are influencing this.

       SNAP agencies that experience an above average (>38%)
            distribution of fraud losses due to IHEs have a higher cost of
            fraud compared to the overall average.

       Identity-related fraud represents over half of fraud losses.

       The mobile channel continues to be a challenge, with
            agencies that have an above average volume of mobile
            transactions also reporting a higher number of fraud attacks
            per month. They are also more likely to have indicated an
            increase in bot attacks during the past 12 months.
    Distribution of SNAP Fraud Losses
              A majority of SNAP application fraud losses are either
            suspicious cases not worked on given lack of resources or
            inadvertent household errors (IHEs) that have not been formally
            designated as an intentional program violation but could be
            provable or reasonably be assumed as fraud.

        EBT card-related fraud losses are distributed similarly across
    various factors, including card not present, counterfeit or doctored
    cards and stolen/card theft. SNAP agencies that experience an above
    average (>38%) distribution of fraud losses due to IHEs have a higher
    cost of fraud compared to the overall average.
    Distribution of SNAP/Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) Card Fraud
            Losses

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              Survey Q5C: Adding to 100%, what percentage do each of the
            following account for your total SNAP fraud losses during the
            past year?
              Survey Q1O: For fraud losses related to EBT transactions/
            purchases, please indicate the distribution across the
            following types of card fraud.

              Identity-related fraud accounts for over half of SNAP fraud
            losses. Automated malicious bot attacks have increased.

        As shown later, the rise of malicious bot attacks is a driver of
    identity verification challenges for roughly half when assessing the
    risk of on line and mobile channel applications. Directionally, those
    with an above average volume of applications through the mobile channel
    are even more likely to indicate an increase in bot attacks from last
    year.
    Distribution of SNAP Fraud Losses by Activity and Fraud Type

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              Survey Q6: Approximately, how much of your fraud losses would
            you attribute to each of the following types of fraud?
              Survey Q15A: In a typical month, what percent of your
            transactions are determined to be malicious automated bot
            attacks?
              Survey Q15B: How does this compare to the same time last
            year? Would you say the percent of monthly automated malicious
            bot attacks has:
    Median Volume of Fraudulent Applications
              SNAP agencies that have a higher, above average volume of
            applications submitted through the mobile channel are dealing
            with more fraud attacks per month, including those that are
            unworked due to limited resources.
    Median Volume of Fraudulent Applications per Month

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              Survey Q13: In a typical month, approximately how many
            fraudulent applications are prevented at the front-end by your
            agency?
              Survey Q14: In a typical month, approximately how many
            fraudulent applications are unworked/not prosecuted at your
            agency?

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Key Findings 3
        Verifying household composition, identifying malicious bots,
    address verification, and identity verification a re among a number of
    challenges SNAP agencies have with on line and mobile channel
    applications.

       Verifying identities is directionally more of a challenge
            with mobile channel applications compared to those via online.

       Those experiencing increased bot attacks are directionally
            more likely to rank verification of household composition as an
            on line and mobile channel challenge.
    Top Online and Mobile Applications Fraud Challenges
              There are many similar fraud detection challenges between
            online and mobile channel applications, including identifying
            malicious bot attacks. Verifying applicants' identity is
            directionally more challenging with mobile channel
            applications.

        Those experiencing increased bot attacks are directionally more
    likely to rank verification of household composition as an on line and
    mobile channel challenge.
    Top Online and Mobile Channel Applications Fraud Challenges
    (% Ranked in Top 3)

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              Survey Q12A: Please rank the top 3 challenges related to
            fraud when the application process is submitted online through
            your agency's website (via a PC).
              Survey Q12B: Please rank the top 3 challenges related to
            fraud when the application process is submitted through a
            mobile device or mobile app.
    Top Factors Challenging Customer Identity Verification
              Confirming location of applicant, the rise of synthetic
            identities, malicious bot attacks and the need for real-time
            data are challenges with identity verification.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              * No segment analysis because of small sample size.
              Survey Q12C: Please rank the top 3 factors that make customer
            identity verification a challenge when SNAP applications are
            submitted through your agency website (via a PC).
              Survey Q12D: Please rank the top 3 factors that make customer
            identity verification a challenge when SNAP applications are
            submitted a mobile device or mobile app.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Key Findings 4
        There is limited use of best-practice fraud mitigation methods
    involving a multi-layered solution approach and the integration of
    fraud solutions with cybersecurity and digital customer experience
    operations.

       Few agencies have fully implemented the USDA Food and
            Nutrition Service (FNS) SNAP Fraud Framework, though over half
            have partially done so.

       FNS SNAP Fraud Framework, though over half have partially
            done so.

       The use of fraud mitigation solutions is limited,
            particularly those that assess digital identity attributes to
            address challenges with on line and mobile channel fraud
            detection challenges.
    FNS SNAP Fraud Framework and Other Best Practice Approaches
              Many agencies are still in the process of implementing the
            SNAP Fraud Framework, though agencies are moving towards this.
            Half of participating agencies have integrated their
            cybersecurity operations with their fraud prevention efforts.

        Fewer have fully integrated their digital/customer experience with
    fraud prevention efforts as a majority are less than extremely focused
    on minimizing friction. Those that are extremely focused on minimizing
    customer friction are more likely to have implemented these best
    practice approaches.
    FNS SNAP Fraud Framework and Other Best Practices Implementation

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              Survey Q16A: Has your agency implemented recommendations from
            the FNS SNAP Fraud Framework?
              Survey Q16B: Does your agency have plans to implement the FNS
            SNAP Fraud Framework during the next 12-18 months?
              Survey Q18: To what degree has your agency integrated its
            cybersecurity operations with its fraud prevention efforts?
              Survey Q19: Approximately, what is your agency's typical rate
            of churn (i.e., the number of clients that are denied and
            reapply within the same eligibility period)?
              Survey Q19B: To what degree is your agency focused on
            minimizing customer friction when a SNAP application is
            completed online (via a PC) or through a mobile device or
            mobile app?
              Survey Q20: To what degree has your agency integrated its
            digital/customer experience operations with its fraud
            prevention efforts?
    Providers Helping to Detect and Mitigate SNAP Fraud
              An Electronic Disqualified Recipient System (eDRS) is
            mentioned by many participating agencies as a source of fraud
            detection information. The National Accuracy Clearinghouse and
            National Directory of New Hires (NDNH) are similarly mentioned.

        Fewer have fully integrated their digital/customer experience with
    fraud prevention efforts as a majority are less than extremely focused
    on minimizing friction. Those that are extremely focused on minimizing
    customer friction are more likely to have implemented these best
    practice approaches.
    Sourcing Information from Providers to Detect and Mitigate SNAP Fraud

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              Survey Q17B: Does your agency participate in/source
            information from any of the following in order to detect and
            mitigate SNAP fraud?
    Fraud Prevention Solutions Cost
              The amount of budget dedicated to the detection and
            mitigation of fraud is 2% on average, with nearly half of
            participating agencies expecting this to increase next year by
            an average of 6%.
    Fraud Prevention Solutions Budget

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              Survey Q5D: Approximately, what percent of your annual budget
            is dedicated to the detection and prevention of fraud?
              Survey Q5F: Do you expect the amount you spend on fraud
            prevention solutions to increase, remain the same, or decrease
            in the next year?
    Fraud Prevention Solution Use
              Overall, there is limited use of digital identity solutions
            that specifically support fraud detection in the online and
            mobile channels.

        These types of solutions are designed to assess both individual and
    device risks (E-mail Risk Verification, Geolocation, Device ID,
    Biometrics and Behavioral Biometrics) and risk of the transaction
    (Real-Time Fraud Detection), which provide fast, seamless, and ``behind
    the scenes'' fraud detection that reduces customer efforts and delays
    while more effectively distinguishing synthetic identities and
    malicious bots.
    Fraud Prevention Solutions Budget & Use
                      In other LexisNexis' Risk Solutions True
                    Cost of FraudTM studies, findings have shown
                    that organizations which use a multi-layered solutions
                    approach involving both traditional and digital
                    identity verification solutions along with integrating
                    cybersecurity and the digital customer experience with
                    these solutions experience a lower cost of fraud and
                    greater effectiveness at detecting and mitigating
                    fraud.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              Survey Q17: Which solutions does your agency currently use to
            detect and mitigate fraud associated with SNAP applications/
            eligibility, account login and/or trafficking of benefits?

              For more information, please visit https://
            risk.lexisnexis.com/GovFraud or call 1-888-216-3544
    About LexisNexis Risk Solutions
              LexisNexis' Risk Solutions (lexisnexis.com/risk)
            is a leader in providing essential information that helps
            customers across all industries and government predict, assess
            and manage risk. Combining cutting-edge technology, unique data
            and advanced scoring analytics, we provide products and
            services that address evolving client needs in the risk sector
            while upholding the highest standards of security and privacy.
            LexisNexis Risk Solutions is part of Reed Elsevier, a leading
            publisher and information provider that serves customers in
            more than 100 countries with more than 30,000 employees
            worldwide.
              LexisNexis and the Knowledge Burst logo are registered
            trademarks of RELX Inc. Copyright  2022
            LexisNexis Risk Solutions.
                                     ______

     Submitted Website Snapshot by Hon. Scott DesJarlais, a Representative
                          in Congress from Tennessee

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    [https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/eligibility/citizen/non-citizen-policy]
    Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
    SNAP Policy on Non-Citizen Eligibility
        Only U.S. citizens and certain lawfully-present non-citizens may
    receive SNAP benefits. Non-citizens who are eligible based on their
    immigration status must also meet other SNAP eligibility requirements
    such as income and resource limits.
    Non-citizens eligible with no waiting period
        The following non-citizens are eligible with no waiting period:

       Qualified alien children under 18 years old

       Refugees admitted under section 207 of INA (includes victims
            of severe forms of trafficking)

       Victims of Trafficking under the Trafficking Victims
            Protection Act of 2000

       Asylees under Section 208 of the Immigration and Nationality
            Act (INA)

       Deportation withheld under 243(h) or 241(b)(3) of INA

       Amerasian immigrants under 584 of the Foreign Operations,
            Export Financing and Related Programs Appropriations Act

       Cuban or Haitian entrants as defined in 501(e) of the
            Refugee Education Assistance Act of 1980

       Iraqi and Afghan special immigrants under Section 101(a)(27)
            of the INA

       Certain American Indians born abroad

       Members of Hmong or Highland Laotian Tribes, legally living
            in the U.S., that helped the U.S. military during the Vietnam
            era, and their spouses or surviving spouses and unmarried
            dependent children

       Elderly individuals born on or before August 22nd, 1931 and
            who lawfully resided in the U.S. on August 22nd, 1996

       Lawful Permanent Residents in the U.S. who are receiving
            government payments for disability or blindness

       Lawful Permanent Residents with a military connection
            (veteran, on active duty, or spouse or child of a veteran or
            active duty service member)
    Qualified aliens eligible after a waiting period
        A qualified alien is a non-citizen with a certain immigration
    status defined under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
    Reconciliation Act (PRWORA).
        A qualified alien who does not belong to one of the non-citizen
    groups listed above can be considered for SNAP benefits after a waiting
    period if the person is:

       A Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR) who has earned, or can be
            credited with, 40 quarters of work, or

       Is an alien in one of the following groups who has been in
            qualified status for 5 years:

         Paroled for at least 1 year under section 212(d)(5) of
                INA

         Granted conditional entry under 203(a)(7) of INA in
                effect prior to April 1, 1980

         Battered spouse, child or parent with a petition
                pending under 204(a)(1)(A) or (B) or 244(a)(3) of INA

                                                                 09/04/2013
                                     ______

      Submitted Letters by Hon. David Scott, a Representative in Congress
                                  from Georgia
                                    Letter 1
    on behalf of hoa pham, deputy secretary, office of income maintenance,
                   pennsylvania department of human services
    June 15, 2023

      Committee on Agriculture,
      U.S. House of Representatives,
      Washington, D.C.

        Dear Representatives:

        Thank you to the U.S. House Committee on Agriculture for organizing
    the June 7, 2023 hearing, ``Innovation, Employment, Integrity, and
    Health: Opportunities for Modernization in Title IV.'' On behalf of the
    Pennsylvania Department of Human Services, I am submitting this
    statement for the record.
        The Pennsylvania Department of Human Services (PA DHS) administers
    the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) for over 1.9
    million food-insecure individuals across the Commonwealth. We are proud
    of the important work we have done to create vital access to nutrition.
    At the same time, we take seriously our responsibility to steward
    taxpayer funds, and have in place a robust array of program integrity
    measures to ensure public funds are directed to people in need, and
    only people in need. First, DHS prioritizes fraud prevention: we
    regularly review twelve state and Federal databases to verify ongoing
    eligibility for our programs. Second, DHS works closely with the Office
    of State Inspector General (OSIG) to target, investigate, and defer
    trafficking of SNAP benefits. Indeed, OSIG conducts investigations
    specifically into suspected fraud cases most of which are referred
    directly from DHS.
        PA DHS would like to submit for the record that the testimony
    offered by Ms. Dawn Royal, Director and Past President of United
    Council on Welfare Fraud during the June 7, 2023 House Committee on
    Agriculture's Hearing ``Innovation, Employment, Integrity, and Health:
    Opportunities for Modernization in Title IV,'' and specifically the
    citation of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's Inspector General ``told
    lawmakers during a recent budget hearing that the agency uncovered a
    40% fraud rate among public assistance beneficiaries--primarily in the
    Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program'' is not a direct quote,
    and was offered by Ms. Royal outside of the context in which OSIG
    described in its testimony. The reality is that 40% of OSIG's field
    investigations--most of which occur when DHS refers suspected fraud to
    OSIG--result in fraud findings. This is a wholly different statement
    than 40% of Pennsylvania's public beneficiaries commit fraud. Ms.
    Royal's testimony provided in the hearing is an untrue
    mischaracterization that at best, belies PA DHS and OSIG's diligent
    work to prevent and deter fraud, and at worst, risks making dangerous
    decisions on false grounds to minimize support for vulnerable families.
        PA DHS appreciates the opportunity to submit this statement for the
    record, and we are happy to provide additional information about our
    fraud monitoring and OSIG's investigations as it would be helpful. We
    look forward to ongoing discussion to strengthen and modernize the SNAP
    program in ways that support food-insecure households.
                Sincerely,

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Hoa Pham,
    Deputy Secretary, Office of Income Maintenance,
    Pennsylvania Department of Human Services.
                                    Letter 2
            on behalf of academy of nutrition and dietetics, et al.
    June 5, 2023

    Hon. Debbie Stabenow,                Hon. Glenn Thompson,
    Chair,                               Chairman,
    Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and   House Agriculture Committee;
     Forestry Committee;

    Hon. John Boozman,                   Hon. David Scott,
    Ranking Minority Member,             Ranking Member,
    Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and   House Agriculture Committee;
     Forestry Committee;

        Dear Chairwoman Stabenow, Ranking Member Boozman, Chairman
    Thompson, and Ranking Member Scott:

        As Congress considers the 2023 Farm Bill, the undersigned
    organizations write in strong support for maintaining the ability of
    individuals to choose the groceries they feel are best for their
    families rather than items decided by the government within the
    Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
        SNAP provides households with resources to supplement their overall
    food budgets to meet basic needs in a manner that allows them to
    address allergy or dietary needs as well as budgetary or medical
    challenges.
        Dividing SNAP food items into a complex system of variable,
    government-administered state-specific lists from among the 40,000
    items in a grocery store would be confusing to customers and retailers
    and would increase the cost of administering the program for retailers
    that accept SNAP benefits. This would particularly burden smaller
    retailers in key rural and urban markets.
        To create and maintain a government-approved list of foods that
    would be SNAP eligible and those that would not be, stores would need
    to manage the data and determination of eligibility of the more than
    20,000 new food and beverage items introduced each year, requiring them
    to program any updates into computer systems to ensure compliance.
    Store associates would have to attempt to explain the restrictions to
    customers leading to confusion. Managing a SNAP-eligible foods list
    would be an unending task that would have to be staffed and maintained,
    and communicated to retailers, customers, and manufacturers on a real-
    time basis.
        Defining foods as ``in'' or ``out'' based on some type of
    undetermined government definition of ``healthy'' means picking winners
    and losers for families simply trying to feed their families. USDA has
    rejected state requests over a number of years to restrict purchases of
    types of foods within SNAP because of the additional program complexity
    and costs. Additionally, Federal dietary guidance applies to a total
    diet, not individual foods.
        Furthermore, most customers paying with SNAP benefits are
    supplementing those food purchases with another form of tender--cash,
    WIC, TANF or debit card. In those instances, any restrictions could be
    complicated for store personnel based on the location of the item on
    the conveyor belt and which form of payment is accessed first in the
    order, simply complicating and slowing the transactions for both
    customers and retailers.
        The data is clear that SNAP already improves diet-related health
    outcomes. If the Federal Government were to put in place a single list
    of eligible products or ineligible products, it would be easier for
    those rules to change from state-to-state, county-to-county or
    Administration-to-Administration--deepening the complexity. Since its
    inception as a program, there have been several attempts to impose a
    wide variety of restrictions including those on certain dairy foods,
    frozen foods, imported foods, meats, seafood, cake mixes, snack foods,
    and carbonated or sugar-sweetened beverages.
        We should not lose ground on the efficiencies that have been added
    to SNAP and the dignity it provides to SNAP recipients. Much of the
    stigma that used to be attached to participation in SNAP stemmed from
    the visibility participants received when redeeming paper ``food
    stamp'' coupons in a supermarket line. Implementation of EBT technology
    and online SNAP have enhanced the dignity experienced by SNAP customers
    along with the efficiencies of administration. Implementing
    restrictions is a step backwards, reducing both the efficiencies of the
    program and the dignity of SNAP customers, most of whom are
    experiencing a short-term need, and are already struggling to feed
    their families.
        As you consider the upcoming farm bill, we encourage you to
    maintain the long-held policy position that recipients should be
    allowed to buy the foods their families need without following a
    government-issued list.
                Sincerely,

    Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics   National Confectioners Association
    Alliance to End Hunger               National Council of Farmer
                                          Cooperatives
    American Bakers Association          National Grocers Association
    American Beverage Association        National Milk Producers Federation
    American Frozen Food Institute       National Pork Producers Council
    Can Manufacturers Institute          National Retail Federation
    Congressional Hunger Center          National Turkey Federation
    Consumer Brands Association          North America Millers' Association
    Corn Refiners Association            North American Meat Institute
    Feeding America                      Share Our Strength
    Food Research & Action Center        SNAC International
    FMI--the Food Industry Association   United Food and Commercial Workers
    National Association of Convenience
     Stores

    CC:

      The Honorable Chuck Schumer, Majority Leader, U.S. Senate
      The Honorable Mitch McConnell, Minority Leader, U.S. Senate
      The Honorable Kevin McCarthy, Speaker, U.S. House
      The Honorable Hakeem Jeffries, Minority Leader, U.S. House
                                     ______

     Submitted News Release by Hon. James P. McGovern, a Representative in
                          Congress from Massachusetts

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    [https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news/2023/03/city-slickers-
    receiving-federal-farm-subsidies-soared-under-trump]

    By Jared Hayes \1\ (EWG), Eve Devens \2\ (EWG)
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/our-experts/jared-hayes.
        \2\ https://www.ewg.org/who-we-are/our-team/eve-devens.

    March 9, 2023
    `City slickers' receiving Federal farm subsidies soared under Trump

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        From coast to coast, almost 29,000 people in the 50 largest U.S.
    cities had received a combined $555 million in farm subsidies as of
    2021, as the payments soared during the Trump Administration.
        The surge in Department of Agriculture farm subsidy recipients in
    these cities was mostly due to payouts from two Trump-era disaster
    programs--the Market Facilitation Program and the Coronavirus Food
    Assistance Program, an Environmental Working Group Analysis finds.
        In Chicago, Los Angeles, New York and other major cities, between
    1995 and 2021, exactly 28,831 people got subsidies totaling just under
    $555 million. That's a significant increase over the number of
    recipients and value of subsidies just a few years ago.
        In 2018, an EWG analysis identified \3\ 19,832 ``city slickers''--
    urban dwellers--in the nation's largest cities who had received $109
    million in farm subsidies as of 2017. Those figures also represented an
    increase over previous years--EWG found that 17,836 people living in
    the 50 biggest U.S. cities got $63 million in farm subsidies in 2015
    and 2016.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news/2018/11/nearly-20000-
    city-slickers-received-farm-subsidies-2017.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The size of payments to city slickers and the amount of recipients
    has increased significantly in the years since 2017. Since then, the
    average payment has increased, from just over $3,000 going to just over
    16,000 people, up to its highest in 2020, when average payments reached
    nearly $22,000 going to more than 20,000 people.
        Farm subsidy recipients must be ``actively engaged'' \4\ in
    farming. But under current law, urban residents can and do get farm
    subsidies even if they do not live or work on a farm.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44656.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Government Accountability Office in 2018 found \5\ that roughly
    \1/4\ of farm subsidy recipients do not contribute personal labor to
    farms.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/691864.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        By contrast, anti-hunger assistance programs are subject to much
    stricter income and asset tests,\6\ so people living on low income stay
    eligible for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits for
    only 12 months,\7\ on average.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/a-quick-guide-to-
    snap-eligibility-and-benefits.
        \7\ https://www.cbpp.org/research/testimony-of-robert-greenstein-
    president-center-on-budget-and-policy-priorities-before-1.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Rather than closing loopholes \8\ that allow city slickers to
    receive farm subsidies, the 2018 Farm Bill created new subsidy
    loopholes by allowing a farmer's cousins, nieces and nephews to receive
    payments, whether they live or work on a farm or not.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ https://www.ewg.org/agmag/2018/05/23andme-farm-bill#.WwGKy1Mvx-
    U.

     Table: Farm subsidies rose during Trump Administration for people in 50
                               largest U.S. cities
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  City                    Recipients             Total
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Albuquerque, N.M.                   468       $5,771,058.69
               Arlington, Texas                   429       $3,640,827.72
                        Atlanta                   351       $3,147,202.18
                  Austin, Texas                 1,287      $15,537,323.24
            Bakersfield, Calif.                   474      $61,044,895.85
                 Baltimore, Md.                    43       $1,000,288.84
                         Boston                    25         $837,805.07
                Charlotte, N.C.                   210       $2,621,918.84
                        Chicago                   526       $6,324,579.32
        Colorado Springs, Colo.                   589       $6,582,394.43
                 Columbus, Ohio                   321       $4,411,185.39
                         Dallas                 1,318      $17,172,774.93
                         Denver                   975      $10,657,980.86
                        Detroit                    40         $290,485.73
                 El Paso, Texas                   209       $5,984,905.26
              Fort Worth, Texas                   865      $17,215,142.34
                 Fresno, Calif.                 1,266      $97,680,950.65
                        Houston                 1,992      $21,181,654.30
                   Indianapolis                   731       $9,109,378.78
             Jacksonville, Fla.                   202       $1,883,606.30
               Kansas City, Mo.                 1,337      $14,189,115.33
                               Las Vegas          253       $4,350,693.56
                               Long Beach, Calif.  76       $1,703,985.70
                               Los Angeles        223       $9,490,534.54
                               Louisville, Ky.    467       $3,736,138.60
                 Memphis, Tenn.                   999      $14,482,809.39
                    Mesa, Ariz.                   321       $8,240,067.71
                          Miami                   403      $25,711,196.50
                      Milwaukee                   114       $1,236,818.69
                    Minneapolis                   720      $10,908,305.55
               Nashville, Tenn.                   440       $3,732,030.10
                       New York                   191       $2,733,103.60
                Oakland, Calif.                    81         $770,859.82
                  Oklahoma City                 1,267      $13,826,522.53
                    Omaha, Neb.                 1,602      $26,807,446.88
                   Philadelphia                    39         $922,061.15
                        Phoenix                   436      $13,268,156.76
                 Portland, Ore.                   450       $5,127,831.47
                  Raleigh, N.C.                   249       $3,813,354.85
             Sacramento, Calif.                   227       $7,490,124.81
                    San Antonio                 1,078      $16,900,412.28
                      San Diego                   315       $3,494,921.68
                  San Francisco                   202       $3,498,127.90
               San Jose, Calif.                   192       $5,321,126.13
                        Seattle                   465       $5,014,325.01
                  Tucson, Ariz.                   430       $6,565,064.45
                   Tulsa, Okla.                   719       $9,312,075.32
            Virginia Beach, Va.                   173       $4,043,436.94
               Washington, D.C.                   165       $2,141,955.14
                  Wichita, Kan.                 2,876      $34,052,859.60
                                     ---------------------------------------
      Total.........................           28,831     $554,981,820.71
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                     ______

      Submitted Resolution by Hon. James P. McGovern, a Representative in
                          Congress from Massachusetts

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    [91st Annual Meeting (Columbus, 2023), Adopted Resolutions, Committee
    on Children, Health, and Human Services, U.S. Conference of Mayors]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    [https://legacy.usmayors.org/resolutions/91st--Conference/proposed-
    review-list-full-print-committee-
    individual.asp?resid=a0F4N00000S4ulBUAR]
    2023 Adopted Resolutions
    Protect and Strengthen SNAP in the 2023 Farm Bill
        1. Whereas, Mayors across the country recognize that farm bill
    programs provide essential support to cities, their residents, and
    their economies; and
        2. Whereas, the farm bill's unique focus on eliminating hunger and
    increasing nutrition security builds a stronger society for all of our
    residents; and
        3. Whereas, the provisions of the farm bill support both urban and
    rural communities, and provide critical assistance to those facing the
    devastating effects of hunger and poverty; and
        4. Whereas, a key part of the farm bill, the Supplemental Nutrition
    Assistance Program (SNAP), the largest anti-hunger program in the
    United States, provides critical food and nutrition assistance to over
    42 million low-income Americans; and
        5. Whereas, SNAP has proven to be a crucial tool for mitigating
    food hardship and supporting local economies especially during the
    pandemic; and
        6. Whereas, eligibility for SNAP is limited to households with a
    gross income under 130% of the Federal poverty guidelines, which is
    about $36,000 for a family of four; and
        7. Whereas, 14 million children, or one in five U.S. children
    participate in SNAP, and 66% of all SNAP households contain children;
    and
        8. Whereas, 84% of SNAP families had at least one person working in
    the past 12 months, but the average SNAP household had an annual gross
    income of only $10,464; and
        9. Whereas, SNAP improves food security by increasing access to
    nutritious food, and is linked to approximately 25% lower health care
    costs; and
        10. Whereas, the Thrifty Food Plan, a set of standards reflective
    of the real-life costs to maintain a nutritious diet, was revised by
    the USDA in 2021 for the first time in 45 years since being introduced
    in 1975, increasing the value of SNAP benefits 21%; and
        11. Whereas, the Thrifty Food Plan sets the maximum level of
    benefits available to SNAP household by family size, and increased the
    benefits by $6 a person per day; and
        12. Now Therefore Be It Resolved, that The United States Conference
    of Mayors calls on Congress to reauthorize the nation's nutrition and
    agricultural legislation, the farm bill, before September 30th, 2023;
    and
        13. Be It Further Resolved, that The United States Conference of
    Mayors urges Congress to protect the nutrition portion of the farm bill
    that provides critical food assistance to 42 million Americans, more
    than half of whom are children and seniors; and
        14. Be It Further Resolved, that SNAP helps the most vulnerable in
    our cities and rural communities, SNAP participation contributes to
    improved nutrition and positive long-term health outcomes; and
        15. Be It Further Resolved, the farm bill should modernize the
    program and reduce the administrative burden on participants and state
    agencies with improved technology that strengthens the integrity and
    efficiency of the program; and
        16. Be It Further Resolved, that Mayors strongly support all
    efforts to increase the safety and security of Electronic Benefit
    Cards, including chip technology and consumer protections; and
        17. Be It Further Resolved, that Mayors strongly oppose proposals
    to increase the work requirements on SNAP recipients, which do little
    to improve employability or self-sufficiency, and actually increase
    food insecurity; and
        18. Be It Further Resolved, the Mayors strongly oppose limiting
    SNAP eligibility to only 3 months every 3 years for Able-Bodied Adults
    without Dependents; and
        19. Be It Further Resolved, the Mayors support maintaining the
    option for any state to choose to expand participation through the
    adoption of Broad Based Categorical Eligibility for households with an
    income at or below 200% of the Federal Poverty Limit, and to streamline
    income and resource guidelines with other Federal benefit programs; and
        20. Be It Further Resolved, that Mayors support maintaining SNAP-ED
    as mandatory funding, and expanding food and nutrition education
    programs; and
        21. Be It Further Resolved, that Mayors support programs that
    promote food security, nutrition, and health by maintaining nutrition
    programs funding opportunities like the Gus Schumacher Nutrition
    Incentive Program (GusNIP) providing incentives to increase the
    purchase of fruits and vegetables by low-income consumers; and
        22. Be It Further Resolved, that Mayors strongly support
    simplifying and expanding SNAP eligibility for all students who are
    enrolled in an institution of higher learning; and
        23. Be It Further Resolved, that Mayors support programs that
    increase equitable accesses to SNAP in historically underserved
    communities, including immigrants and others impacted by the suggested
    rule changes to the Public Charge policy; and
        24. Be It Further Resolved, the Mayors support full access to SNAP
    for Tribal communities, regardless of participation in other nutrition
    programs, and the full transition to SNAP for Puerto Rico and other
    U.S. Territories; and
        25. Be It Further Resolved, that The United States Conference of
    Mayors supports the passage of a farm bill that incorporates the
    following principles: protect the value of SNAP benefits, maintain and
    increase equitable access to SNAP and nutrition education, and
    streamline SNAP program administration to increase cost efficiencies
    while improving access to benefits, and access to nutritious, fresh,
    and local food.

               Copyright 2023. The United States
            Conference of Mayors. All rights reserved. The United States
            Conference of Mayors. 1620 Eye St. NW, 4th Floor--Washington,
            D.C. 20006, Phone: (202) 293-7330, Email: info@usmayors.org.
              [Sponsored by: Levar Stoney (Richmond, VA); Andy Schor
            (Lansing, MI); Satya Rhodes-Conway (Madison, WI); John Giles
            (Mesa, AZ); Eric L. Adams (New York, NY); Alix Desulme (North
            Miami, FL); Ron Nirenberg (San Antonio, TX); Paige G. Cognetti
            (Scranton, PA); Tishaura O. Jones (St. Louis, MO); Martha
            Guerrero (West Sacramento, CA)].
                                     ______

    Submitted Report by Hon. Abigail Davis Spanberger, a Representative in
                             Congress from Virginia

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    [https://trac.syr.edu/reports/705/]
    A Sober Assessment of the Growing U.S. Asylum Backlog
    Published Dec. 22, 2022

        The latest available data reveal that the number of asylum seekers
    waiting for asylum hearings in the U.S. has now reached at least
    1,565,966 individuals. About half of this total, or 787,882, are
    waiting for hearings before judges in the Immigration Courts housed in
    the Department of Justice. The other half, or 778,084 asylum seekers,
    are waiting for hearings before United States Citizenship and
    Immigration Services (USCIS) asylum officers who are housed in the
    Department of Homeland Security.\1\ Many other asylum seekers have been
    allowed to enter the United States to go through the asylum process but
    have not yet submitted an asylum application.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ These asylum backlog figures are of individuals for both EOIR
    and USCIS. While EOIR counts each individual as a case, usually USCIS
    reports its backlog in terms of applications, rather than the number of
    individuals covered by these applications. Thus, USCIS figures used
    here of the number of individuals in its asylum backlog differ from
    agency published reports (https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/
    document/outreach-engagements/Asylum-Quarterly-Engagement-Oct-6-22.pdf)
    about its pending asylum applications.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        These asylum applications--nearly 1.6 million--represent the
    largest total number of pending asylum applications on record. Asylum
    backlogs are not new (as TRAC has shown many times), since the number
    of people requesting the type of protection that asylum provides has
    typically exceeded the capacity of government agencies to process
    applications quickly and fairly.
        Yet in recent years, with political, economic, and environmental
    instability in places like Mexico, Venezuela, Haiti, Central America,
    Ukraine, and elsewhere, the United States has seen a growth in
    migrants' needs that outpace even the growing number of Immigration
    Judges and asylum officers added by both Democratic and Republican
    Administrations. Even so, 1.6 million applications are a lot of
    applications, and a lot of human lives represented by those
    applications, many of them children. This growth has contributed to
    bureaucratic pressures on government agencies and no doubt contributed
    to vigorous (but not always research-informed) public debate about
    asylum policies.
        In this report, TRAC aims to contribute to the public's
    understanding of the current state of the asylum system by providing a
    detailed portrait of the nearly 800,000 cases in the asylum backlog
    before the Immigration Courts. The report is based on detailed case-by-
    case Court records obtained and analyzed by the Transactional Records
    Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) at Syracuse University. TRAC has been
    making monthly requests under the Freedom of Information Act for data
    dumps of these court records for many years and has compiled an
    extensive and detailed time series on the Court's growing backlog.
    Unfortunately, comparable records are not yet available from USCIS on
    its asylum backlog. TRAC looks forward to when similar detailed case-
    by-case records become available from that agency so that a more
    comprehensive portrait of the total set of asylum seekers before both
    agencies can be compiled.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Earlier TRAC reported on outcomes of asylum seekers (https://
    trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/672) in the U.S. combining results
    from USCIS and Immigration Court hearings. The report demonstrated the
    additional insights gained by examining asylum cases through this more
    comprehensive lens.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Asylum Seekers Before the Immigration Court
        At the end of FY 2012, over 100,000 asylum cases were pending in
    the Immigration Court's backlog. A decade later, the backlog had grown
    over seven-fold to over 750,000 cases in September at the end of FY
    2022. Since then, in just the first 2 months of FY 2023 (October-
    November 2022), the asylum backlog jumped by over 30,000 new cases and
    now totals 787,882. See Figure 1.
    Figure 1. Pending Cases in the Immigration Court Asylum Backlog at the
            End of Each Fiscal Year, as of November 2022
    Growth in Immigration Court Asylum Backlog

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              * As of Nov. 30, 2022.
              TRAC 2022.

        As TRAC previously reported,[1] the Biden Administration
    has substantially increased the number of asylum cases completed by
    Immigration Judges. As a result, even though the backlog continues to
    increase, its rate of increase has been slower than the previous
    Administration. See Figure 2 and Table 1.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \[1]\ https://trac.syr.edu/reports/703/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        But the situation may be changing. During October and November 2022
    (the first 2 months of FY 2023), the Immigration Court's asylum case
    backlog grew by more than the growth during the entire last year of the
    Obama Administration in FY 2016. The termination of Title 42, a public
    health policy that allows asylum seekers to be expelled without a
    hearing, is likely to lead to an increase in the arrival of asylum
    seekers at the U.S.-Mexico border. While projections from just 2 months
    to an entire fiscal year is highly speculative, if the current pace
    continues, the asylum backlog as shown in Figure 2 would jump by a
    record-breaking number during FY 2023.
    Figure 2. Asylum Cases Added to the Immigration Court Backlog Since FY
            2012, as of November 2022
    Asylum Cases Added to the Immigration Court Backlog Each Year, FY 2013-
            2023

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              TRAC 2022.

                 Table 1. Immigration Court Asylum Case Backlog
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Fiscal Year End *         Number Pending           Annual Change
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 2012                   105,919
                 2013                   108,398                   2,479
                 2014                   114,603                   6,205
                 2015                   136,145                  21,542
                 2016                   163,451                  27,306
                 2017                   259,871                  96,420
                 2018                   364,990                 105,119
                 2019                   489,003                 124,013
                 2020                   614,751                 125,748
                 2021                   667,229                  52,478
                 2022                   756,690                  89,461
               2023 *                   787,882                  31,192
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    * The fiscal year ends on September 30; latest data for FY 2023 is at
      the end of Nov 2022.

        These rising case numbers, however, still underestimate the actual
    total backlog of asylum seekers in the United States awaiting their
    hearings. For asylum seekers who are put into the deportation process,
    their deportation case begins before their asylum case begins. The
    formal application for asylum is usually filed months after their NTA
    is issued and after the case is added to the Immigration Court,
    typically due to the time needed to get an attorney and assemble what
    can often be quite complex cases. But from a data tracking perspective,
    it is only with the filing of an asylum application that a case can be
    identified as part of the asylum backlog. If the number of asylum
    seekers are rising, the asylum backlog count lags behind the number of
    asylum seekers who have entered the Court's workload.
    Affirmative versus Defensive Asylum Cases in Immigration Court
        There are two main types of asylum applications each decided (at
    least at first) by a different Federal agency. Most asylum applications
    today are considered defensive applications and filed in response to
    the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) initiating removal
    proceedings in Immigration Court by filing a Notice to Appear (NTA). An
    individual may then claim that they are entitled to asylum as a defense
    against removal (i.e., deportation)--although in most cases, the
    migrants came to the U.S. for the purpose of seeking asylum in the
    first place.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ As a matter of practice, asylum seekers who cross the border
    unlawfully are currently typically assigned by DHS to the defensive
    asylum path in the Immigration Courts, even though their sole purpose
    for crossing was to affirmatively request asylum. The Biden
    Administration has recently implemented a change in policy that would
    provide these asylum seekers with a hearing before USCIS asylum
    officers. This so-called Asylum Officer Rule calls for expedited
    hearings in these cases and is being phased in currently.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Affirmative applications, in contrast, are those which are filed
    with USCIS. However, if USCIS denies the affirmative asylum
    application, the agency then generally refers the application to the
    Immigration Court. Within the Immigration Court context, this is still
    considered an affirmative application.\4\ Thus, unsuccessful
    affirmative asylum applications can make their way to a second hearing
    and decision by an Immigration Judge and become part of the Court's
    asylum backlog.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Despite the many nuanced legal differences between affirmative
    and defensive asylum, perhaps the most important practical difference
    is that affirmative asylum interviews take place in an administrative,
    non-adversarial (or at least less adversarial) setting with an asylum
    officer and with the option of having an attorney and interpreter
    present, but without an opposing counsel. In contrast, defensive asylum
    hearings take place in an adversarial setting in Immigration Court with
    an Immigration Judge and an opposing attorney from Immigration and
    Customs Enforcement.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        At one time in the past, these referrals from USCIS made up more
    than half of the Court's asylum backlog. However, the proportion of new
    affirmative asylum cases began steadily declining starting in FY 2007.
    At that time, affirmative cases referred from USCIS made up 70 percent
    of the Court's new asylum cases. By FY 2017 they had fallen to just 15
    percent.\5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ See TRAC's Asylum Filings (https://trac.syr.edu/phptools/
    immigration/asyfile/) web query tool.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Court's affirmative asylum backlog reflects these filing
    trends. It declined slowly from FY 2012, when TRAC's available data
    begins, until 2017 when affirmative cases then began an upward rise.
    The number of affirmative asylum cases in the Court's backlog grew
    steadily from FY 2017 through FY 2021. See Figure 3.
        Starting in FY 2022, affirmative cases again began to decline. The
    implementation of the new Asylum Officer Rule, where asylum officers
    are given new authority to hear asylum cases in place of Immigration
    Judges, may change these trends once again.
        In contrast, the sheer number of defensive asylum cases has seen an
    unbroken rise. The growth, while slow at first, picked up speed and by
    the end of FY 2015 the number of defensive asylum cases in the Court's
    backlog surpassed these affirmative referrals from USCIS for the first
    time. Numbers have continued a sharp upward trajectory as shown in
    Figure 3.
    Figure 3. Pending Affirmative and Defensive Cases in the Immigration
            Court Asylum Backlog at the End of Each Fiscal Year, as of
            November 2022
    Immigration Court Asylum Backlog

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              * As of Nov. 30, 2022.
              TRAC 2022.

    Table 2. Affirmative and Defensive Immigration Court Asylum Case Backlog
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Number of Pending Cases
     Fiscal Year End * -----------------------------------------------------
                               All           Affirmative        Defensive
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
              2012             105,919            73,676            32,243
              2013             108,398            69,999            38,399
              2014             114,603            64,001            50,602
              2015             136,145            66,263            69,882
              2016             163,451            60,553           102,898
              2017             259,871            69,024           190,847
              2018             364,990           105,818           259,172
              2019             489,003           152,396           336,607
              2020             614,751           182,778           431,973
              2021             667,229           196,994           470,235
              2022             756,690           185,057           571,633
            2023 *             787,882           181,144           606,738
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    * The fiscal year ends on September 30; latest data for FY 2023 is at
      the end of Nov. 2022.

    Custody of Asylum Seekers
        A major political debate, one which is playing out in part in the
    U.S. Federal courts,\6\ continues to rage over whether asylum seekers
    should be detained while their cases are waiting to be heard. As a
    practical matter, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) currently
    is detaining just 29,000 immigrants.[2] Detaining everyone
    in just the current Immigration Court asylum backlog would require more
    than 27 times current detention numbers.\7\ If individuals in the USCIS
    asylum backlog were also required to be detained, the U.S. would need
    54 times its current detention level.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ This is one of the legal issues that has been raised
    challenging the Biden Administration's attempts to end the MPP program.
    On remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, a Texas judge on December 15,
    2022 (https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.346680/
    gov.uscourts.txnd.346680.178.0_2.pdf) issued a nationwide injunction
    against ending MPP. One aspect of his ruling was a provision in the
    Immigration and Nationality Act which provides: ``[If] an alien seeking
    admission is not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted,
    the alien shall be detained for a proceeding . . .''
        \[2]\ https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/quickfacts/detention.html.
        \7\ Significant components include individuals being processed for
    removal without any pending court proceedings or after proceedings have
    concluded and removal was ordered, as well as individuals from
    countries that refuse to allow the U.S. to deport their citizens back
    to their home countries.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In fact, ICE now detains only a small portion--around 2,000--of
    asylum seekers pending before the Immigration Court. Due in part to the
    priority given to quickly scheduling hearings for detained cases, the
    component of detained cases has remained generally below two percent.
    Indeed, with the onset of COVID and the need to increase spacing for
    health reasons among those being held, this proportion has fallen.
    Today only 0.3 percent of those in the current asylum backlog are
    detained. See Table 3 and Figure 4.
    Figure 4. Custody Status of Pending Cases in the Immigration Court
            Asylum Backlog at the End of Each Fiscal Year, as of November
            2022
    Immigration Court Asylum Backlog

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              * As of Nov. 30, 2022.
              TRAC 2022.

        Table 3. Custody Status of Individuals in Immigration Court Asylum Backlog at the End of Each Fiscal Year
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Never  Detained                           Percent
     Fiscal Year End *  All Pending Cases       Detained              **              Released          Detained
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              2014             114,603              1,852             80,701             32,048               1.6%
              2015             136,145              2,710             95,536             37,868               2.0%
              2016             163,451              3,085            111,750             48,585               1.9%
              2017             259,871              3,595            176,870             79,376               1.4%
              2018             364,990              3,348            259,338            102,273               0.9%
              2019             489,003              4,825            360,169            123,932               1.0%
              2020             614,751              7,069            460,311            147,296               1.1%
              2021             667,229              1,175            504,100            161,882               0.2%
              2022             756,690              2,177            594,542            159,908               0.3%
            2023 *             787,882              2,076            624,768            160,975               0.3%
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    * The fiscal year ends on September 30; latest data for FY 2023 is at the end of Nov 2022; data for 2012 and
      2013 unavailable. Case totals include a small number where custody unknown.
    ** Only covers period after case reached Immigration Court.

        While most immigrants in the asylum backlog are not detained, a
    growing segment are being electronically monitored under ICE's
    Alternatives to Detention (ATD) program.[3] For example, one
    of the stated conditions [4] of families being assigned to
    the Court's Dedicated Docket was assignment first to the ATD program.
    Case-by-case internal ICE data obtained and compiled by TRAC reveals
    that 26,780 families assigned to the Court's Dedicated Docket have been
    monitored by ATD. For some of these, monitoring was discontinued after
    a period of time--that is their cases became ``inactive.'' But as of
    June 30, 2022, a total of 16,569 families were being actively monitored
    while they were awaiting their hearing and decision.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \[3]\ https://trac.syr.edu/whatsnew/email.221128.html.
        \[4]\ https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/dhs-and-doj-announce-
    dedicated-docket-process-more-efficient-immigration-hearings.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Given that only one member of a family and not all family members
    likely are being monitored, this implies that virtually all of the
    110,000 asylum seekers assigned to the Dedicated Docket [4]
    are (or were) subject to ATD monitoring.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \[5]\ https://trac.syr.edu/reports/704/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        No solid figures exist as to how many in the current asylum
    backlog, beyond those in the DD program, are being monitored by ATD.
    However, for recent asylum applicants it is likely that their numbers
    have been increasing along with the rapid growth in the ATD
    program.[6]
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \[6]\ https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/quickfacts/detention.html.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representation
        Without representation, many asylum seekers are unable to complete
    the paperwork needed to file a formal asylum application. Hence, these
    individuals never end up part of the asylum backlog and they never
    receive a hearing before an Immigration Judge on their asylum claims.
    Nonetheless, some unrepresented immigrants do manage to file an
    application. In cases decided in FY 2022, less than one out of ten
    asylum seekers were unrepresented.[7]
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \[7]\ https://trac.syr.edu/reports/703/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        However, within the current asylum backlog, one in five (21%) are
    recorded as unrepresented. This ratio appears to greatly overstate the
    actual percentage who are unrepresented, and this could be because of
    how and when representation status is recorded in the Immigration
    Court's files. A record of attorney representation only occurs when an
    attorney files an E-28 form [8] with the Court. Some
    attorneys may register their appearance when the Court actually
    schedules the case for hearing rather than when filing the asylum
    application earlier. Thus, it is possible that a large number of asylum
    seekers are recorded as unrepresented in the Court's files even when
    the asylum application was actually prepared and submitted with the
    assistance of an attorney.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \[8]\ https://www.justice.gov/eoir/file/639746/download.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In fact, 42 percent of those who filed their applications during
    the last 2 months (October-November 2022) are currently shown as
    unrepresented in the Court's records. Many of these asylum applications
    in all likelihood had actually been prepared by an attorney. Indeed,
    the longer ago the application was filed, the more show up as being
    represented. This would be the pattern we would expect if delays
    frequently occur before the E-28 form is filed. See Figure 5 and Table
    4.
    Figure 5. Current Representation Status of Immigration Court Pending
            Cases by When Asylum Application Was Filed
    More in Asylum Backlog Find Attorneys the Longer They Have Waited

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              * As of Nov. 30, 2022.
              TRAC 2022.

       Table 4. Immigration Court Pending Cases by Current Representation and Fiscal Year Asylum Application Filed
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Not Represented                        Represented
        Fiscal Year           Total       --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Number            Percent             Number            Percent
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              2012               3,416                223                 7%              3,193                93%
              2013               4,718                426                 9%              4,292                91%
              2014               6,873                623                 9%              6,250                91%
              2015              12,637              1,078                 9%             11,559                91%
              2016              20,136              1,598                 8%             18,538                92%
              2017              52,634              4,346                 8%             48,288                92%
              2018              79,611              7,308                 9%             72,303                91%
              2019             113,957             14,027                12%             99,930                88%
              2020             133,018             26,308                20%            106,710                80%
              2021              73,393             16,104                22%             57,289                78%
              2022             222,949             68,989                31%            153,960                69%
            2023 *              57,733             24,333                42%             33,400                58%
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    * The fiscal year ends on September 30; latest data for FY 2023 is at the end of Nov 2022.

    Gender and Age
        There is a fairly even split between male and female asylum
    seekers. About three out of ten are children under 18 years of age. The
    children who make up the Court's asylum backlog almost all enter as
    part of a family group. This is because for most unaccompanied children
    their asylum applications are filed with the USCIS under special
    provisions of the law and not with the Immigration Court.
        While the gender of a significant number (24%) is not recorded,
    where gender is known 48 percent are females and 52 percent are males.
    Children between the ages of 0-11 are fairly evenly divided between
    males and females. However, 61 percent of those between 12 and 17 years
    of age are male. Adults from 18 years on up are again fairly evenly
    divided between males and females. Forty-nine percent of all adults are
    females. A slightly higher percentage of 51% of young adults--those
    between 18 and 24 years of age--are females. See Table 5.

              Table 5. Age and Gender of Individuals in Immigration Court Asylum Backlog, November 30, 2022
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Percent  Female
           Age *              Total              Female              Male             Unknown              **
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               All             787,882            284,168            311,862            191,852                48%
               0-4              55,246             24,472             25,634              5,140                49%
              5-11              73,526             32,282             34,761              6,483                48%
             12-17              72,092             25,357             40,050              6,685                39%
             18-24              77,658             37,096             35,019              5,543                51%
             25-34             153,848             72,317             71,390             10,141                50%
             35-44             112,937             49,825             57,224              5,888                47%
             45-59              46,634             20,199             24,305              2,130                45%
               60+               5,687              2,846              2,606                235                52%
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    * All includes 190,254 individuals where age was unknown.
    ** Percent of persons whose gender was known.

    Asylum Seekers by Nationality
        Asylum seekers recorded as speaking 418 different languages from
    219 different countries plus those who are stateless or from countries
    that no longer exist are in the current Immigration Court's asylum
    backlog.\8\ But some countries dominate the asylum roles. Indeed,
    nearly six out of every ten (59%) come from just five countries.
    Guatemala has the largest number of asylum seekers (111,184) in the
    current Court's backlog. This is followed by Honduras with 101,195 and
    El Salvador with 97,260. Together, these three countries from the so-
    called Northern Triangle comprise 39 percent of the Court's asylum
    backlog. Mexico with 82,837 asylum seekers and Venezuela with 71,991
    complete the list of the top five.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ A complete country-by-country and language breakdown of asylum
    seekers in the Court's backlog is available from TRAC's Asylum Backlog
    (https://trac.syr.edu/phptools/immigration/asylumbl/) web query tool.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Beyond these five dominant players, there are an additional nine
    countries with at least 10,000 asylum seekers in the current backlog.
    Driving the increasing asylum backlog have been the increasing numbers
    not just from Venezuela which is in the top five, but from Cuba and
    Brazil who are part of this longer nationality list. See Figure 6 and
    Table 6 for figures on the changing composition of asylum seekers from
    these fourteen countries.
        As shown in Figure 6, in the midst of the growing backlog, four
    nationalities have actually seen net declines. During the last fourteen
    months since the end of FY 2021, declines have occurred in the number
    of asylum seekers from El Salvador, followed by Mexicans, Guatemalans,
    and asylum seekers from China.
        The shifting composition of nationalities reflects not just the
    volume of individuals arriving at our borders seeking asylum, but the
    country's policies and practices of which nationalities are being
    allowed to actually enter the U.S. and seek asylum. Asylum seekers from
    the Northern Triangle countries and Mexico were usually immediately
    turned away under Title 42 and not allowed to enter and seek asylum.
    The Biden Administration has created some exceptions to this policy,
    exceptions that have been structured by nationality. For instance, as
    TRAC previously found, Ukrainian nationals were allowed to enter
    [9] the country at ports of entry through a special program
    designed in response to the war in Ukraine. Later, using that same
    model, the Biden Administration allowed 24,000 Venezuelan nationals to
    enter [10] the United States for humanitarian reasons. The
    Biden Administration has also allowed particularly vulnerable asylum
    seekers to enter the country through an exemption process, a process
    that has also benefitted Haitians, though at much smaller numbers and
    fewer ports of entry.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \[9]\ https://www.dhs.gov/ukraine.
        \[10]\ https://www.dhs.gov/news/2022/10/12/dhs-announces-new-
    migration-enforcement-process-venezuelans.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Figure 6. Top Nationalities in Immigration Court Asylum Backlog, Fiscal
            Year 2021 to November 30, 2022
    Change in Immigration Court Asylum Backlog Since FY 2021

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              TRAC 2022.

     Table 6. Top Nationalities in Immigration Court Asylum Backlog, Fiscal
                         Year 2021 to November 30, 2022
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Pending Cases at End of:
     Nationality *  ------------------------------------------- Change Since
                        FY 2021        FY 2022      Nov. 2022      FY 2021
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Guatemala         119,247        113,074       111,184        ^8,063
         Honduras          96,345        101,958       101,195         4,850
      El Salvador         112,759        100,202        97,260       ^15,499
           Mexico          94,357         84,595        82,837       ^11,520
        Venezuela          30,398         60,410        71,991        41,593
             Cuba          12,913         35,333        46,456        33,543
            India          28,827         32,479        34,230         5,403
          Ecuador          19,796         30,455        30,208        10,412
           Brazil          12,092         26,128        28,810        16,718
        Nicaragua           8,867         20,087        23,748        14,881
            China          27,403         24,036        23,508        ^3,895
            Haiti           9,493         16,163        16,837         7,344
         Colombia           6,253         12,127        14,785         8,532
           Russia           4,647          9,042        10,830         6,183
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    * Countries with 10,000 or more pending asylum cases.

    Asylum Backlogs Differ by Court Location
        Historically, Immigration Courts in California and New York have
    had the largest asylum caseloads and decided the largest numbers of
    asylum claims. Over the years, these two states have experienced more
    asylum cases filed than any other locales. During FY 2022, for example,
    Immigration Courts in these two states accounted for just under half
    (48%) of all asylum cases decided on their merits.[11]
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \[11]\ https://trac.syr.edu/phptools/immigration/asylum/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        But the location of asylum backlogs has been undergoing change as
    the location of new asylum filings has shifted. Florida has seen
    explosive growth in asylum filings. So has Massachusetts. These growth
    patterns have been driven in large part by shifts in the nationality
    groups seeking asylum in this country. Asylum seekers from Venezuela
    and from Cuba--two nationalities that have seen the largest rise--have
    tended to head to Florida. Most Brazilians have sought to start their
    new life in Massachusetts. And largely as a result, the asylum backlogs
    in these two states have experienced the largest growth. See Figure 7
    and Table 7.
        Asylum seekers from Mexico, Guatemala and El Salvador have been
    declining as we saw in Figure 6. California has been the largest
    destination for these groups, and we have seen a decline in the asylum
    backlog in California courts. Chinese asylum seekers have been another
    nationality with declining numbers. New York has historically been
    their primary destination, and in part as a result, as shown in Figure
    7 courts in New York have experienced little increase in their backlog.
        Backlogs, of course, are largely driven by having an inadequate
    number of judges available relative to the volume of asylum cases
    needing to be heard. So it is not surprising that as asylum seekers
    from different countries locate in different regions of the country and
    their relative numbers change, asylum backlogs will also reflect these
    changes.
    Figure 7. Top States With Immigration Court Asylum Backlogs, Fiscal
            Year 2021 to November 30, 2022
    Change in Immigration Court Asylum Backlog Since FY 2021

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              TRAC 2022.

    Table 7. States With Immigration Court Asylum Backlogs, Fiscal Year 2021
                              to November 30, 2022
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Pending Cases at End of:
        State *    -------------------------------------------- Change Since
                       FY 2021        FY 2022       Nov. 2022      FY 2021
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Total         667,229        756,690        787,882       120,653
      California         133,463        127,046        127,804        ^5,659
         Florida          66,640        102,657        114,409        47,769
        New York         110,434        111,041        110,669           235
           Texas          66,967         76,718         80,587        13,620
      New Jersey          37,604         45,087         46,830         9,226
    Massachusetts         28,869         42,198         44,802        15,933
        Virginia          37,087         35,383         35,769        ^1,318
        Illinois          27,066         33,716         35,746         8,680
        Maryland          20,670         22,382         21,703         1,033
    Pennsylvania          14,709         17,867         18,607         3,898
       Tennessee           9,781         14,934         15,882         6,101
         Georgia          10,011         13,446         14,636         4,625
                Louisiana 11,741         13,908         14,346         2,605
    North Carolina         8,240         12,390         13,585         5,345
        Nebraska           9,917         11,740         12,315         2,398
      Washington          10,765         11,554         11,659           894
            Ohio           7,757          8,033          8,771         1,014
       Minnesota           7,904          8,468          8,702           798
        Missouri           7,106          8,064          8,333         1,227
        Colorado           8,040          7,010          7,309          ^731
         Arizona           6,807          6,718          7,166           359
     Connecticut           4,872          5,958          6,132         1,260
          Oregon           6,122          6,212          6,132            10
          Nevada           4,386          5,340          5,751         1,365
            Utah           2,150          4,549          5,719         3,569
        Michigan           3,225          3,896          4,115           890
      New Mexico              93             57             98             5
          Hawaii             120             71             67           ^53
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    * Not all states have Immigration Courts based in them.

    Wait Times and How Quickly Do Cases Get Heard?
        There is no simple answer to the question of how long asylum
    seekers have to wait before they can have their claims heard and
    decided. Under Biden Administration initiatives, including the
    Dedicated Docket and the Asylum Officer Rule initiatives, some newly
    arriving asylum seekers are being moved to the head of the line and
    their hearings expedited. Indeed, criticism is growing that cases are
    being heard too quickly before the asylum seeker has a chance to locate
    an attorney, or for the attorney to prepare adequate support for the
    asylum claims.
        For most others who are not detained, especially those who entered
    the backlog queue a while ago, the wait can be very long. An estimate
    of the average backlog wait times from when the case was filed in the
    Immigration Court to when their asylum hearing will be scheduled and
    their claims heard is currently 1,572 days, or 4.3 years.
        Average wait times also vary by the location of the Court.
    Currently the Immigration Court based in Omaha, Nebraska has the
    longest wait time averaging 2,168 days. This is followed by the Court
    based in Newark, New Jersey where the average wait time is also over
    2,000 days. See Figure 8. Table 8 contains a complete state-by-state
    listing of Immigration Court average wait times as of the end of
    November 2022.
        But even these estimates are subject to a number of additional
    important caveats examined in the next section.
    Figure 8. Estimated Days From Court Filing Until Asylum Hearing
            Scheduled for Immigration Court Pending Asylum Cases, by State
    Estimated Wait Times for Pending Asylum Cases

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              TRAC 2022.

    Table 8. Estimated Days From Court Filing Until Asylum Hearing Scheduled
              for Immigration Court Pending Asylum Cases, by State
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Ave. Wait Time (days)
                         Pending Asylum  -----------------------------------
          State *             Cases                             (excludes
                                              All Cases         detained)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
               All             787,882             1,572             1,576
           Arizona               7,166             1,200             1,210
        California             127,804             1,691             1,693
          Colorado               7,309             1,239             1,251
       Connecticut               6,132             1,315             1,315
           Florida             114,409             1,376             1,377
           Georgia              14,636             1,416             1,427
            Hawaii                  67               355               355
          Illinois              35,746             1,399             1,400
                  Louisiana     14,346             1,896             1,933
          Maryland              21,703             1,554             1,558
     Massachusetts              44,802             1,521             1,522
          Michigan               4,115             1,295             1,298
         Minnesota               8,702             1,505             1,507
          Missouri               8,333             1,985             1,985
          Nebraska              12,315             2,168             2,169
            Nevada               5,751             1,212             1,217
        New Jersey              46,830             2,023             2,024
        New Mexico                  98               103                **
          New York             110,669             1,393             1,398
    North Carolina              13,585             1,705             1,705
              Ohio               8,771               997             1,007
            Oregon               6,132             1,799             1,799
      Pennsylvania              18,607             1,537             1,537
         Tennessee              15,882             1,454             1,454
             Texas              80,587             1,557             1,566
              Utah               5,719               780               780
          Virginia              35,769             1,941             1,943
        Washington              11,659             1,391             1,409
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    * Not all states have Immigration Courts based in them.
    ** All pending cases involved detained individuals.

    Serious Challenges to Estimating Average Wait Times
        Estimating even average wait times poses serious challenges, so
    that any reported values resemble more ``guesstimates'' rather than
    something having a solid basis. The first problem is that even if TRAC
    had information for when each asylum seeker's hearing was scheduled
    (which we do not) hearings schedules often change. Hearings are not
    infrequently canceled because of the unavailability of the judge, or
    for other reasons. When hearings are scheduled further into the future,
    the odds that circumstances may arise requiring rescheduling also
    increases. A hearing can, of course, be postponed or advanced depending
    upon the needs and practices of that Court, or in some circumstances
    the needs of the parties.
        The second challenge is that, in fact, the majority of hearings
    that will be needed are not yet even scheduled. Only about four out of
    ten (43%) individuals in the current asylum backlog have an actual
    individual proceeding scheduled to hear the evidence on the merits of
    that asylum seeker's claims.
        The remaining majority of cases fall into one of two groups. For 35
    percent of those waiting in the asylum backlog, the hearing scheduled
    is still at the ``master calendar'' [12] stage. For these
    initial hearings, a group of individuals are summoned to appear
    together where they are advised of their rights and procedures, the
    charges and factual allegations contained in the Notice to Appear (NTA)
    are explained, and cases are sorted as to what comes next. More than
    one of these master calendar hearings may occur if an individual needs
    more time to find an attorney to represent them, or an attorney once
    found, needs time to secure documents and obtain testimony to support
    the asylum application. Only after these master calendar hearings come
    to a conclusion, is an individual hearing scheduled on the asylum
    seeker's claims. Only one hearing is set at any point in time. Thus,
    for those scheduled for master calendar hearings, no information is
    available on just when the actual merits hearing eventually may occur.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \[12]\ https://www.justice.gov/eoir/reference-materials/ic/chapter-
    4/15.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Figure 9. Scheduled Hearings in Pending Immigration Court Asylum Cases,
            as of November 30, 2022
    Scheduled Hearing in Pending Asylum Cases

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              TRAC 2022.

      Table 9. Scheduled Hearings in Pending Immigration Court Asylum Cases
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Pending Asylum Cases at End of: *
       Scheduled   ---------------------------------------------------------
        Hearing        FY 2020        FY 2021        FY 2022      Nov. 2022
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
             All         614,751        667,229        756,690       787,882
      Individual         350,167        349,720        337,877       339,469
    Master (Group)       188,282        205,178        260,648       274,583
    None Scheduled        76,302        112,331        158,165       173,830
    Percent None             12%            17%            21%           22%
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    * The fiscal year ends on September 30; latest data for FY 2023 is at
      the end of Nov. 2022.

        On the remaining 22 percent of asylum seekers waiting in the
    backlog, no hearing of either kind is currently scheduled. These don't
    tend to be newly arriving cases. Those without any scheduled hearing
    have already been waiting an average of 1,092 days, or 3 years.
        The percentage of asylum seekers with no next hearing scheduled has
    grown. For example, during FY 2020 only 12 percent of cases in the
    backlog had no hearing scheduled as compared with 22 percent now.
    However, this percentage varies a great deal. Some courts with
    thousands in their backlog such as Michigan, Missouri, North Carolina,
    and Pennsylvania have hearings scheduled on 95 percent or more of their
    cases. In contrast, courts in New York, Virginia and Washington State
    had respectively 43%, 46%, and 62% of asylum cases without any
    currently scheduled hearings. For these, it appears they are avoiding
    scheduling hearings too far in advance. See Figure 10 and Table 10.
        Average wait times are of necessity based upon the recorded times
    of the next scheduled hearing for each case. Where many cases do not
    even have their asylum hearing scheduled, clearly the resulting
    estimate is a mere ``guesstimate'' at best.
    Figure 10. No Scheduled Hearing by State in Current Pending Immigration
            Court Asylum Cases
    No Scheduled Hearing in Pending Asylum Cases

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              TRAC 2022.

      Table 10. Scheduled Hearings by State in Current Pending Immigration
                        Court Asylum Cases, November 2022
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Scheduled Hearing
        State *    -------------------------------------------- Percent None
                      Individual       Master         None
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
             All         338,165        274,023        173,618           22%
         Arizona           4,933          1,169            990           14%
      California          87,309         28,329         12,037            9%
        Colorado           1,598          1,876          3,795           52%
     Connecticut           2,107          2,930          1,094           18%
         Florida          22,774         62,640         28,876           25%
         Georgia           2,049          7,044          5,452           37%
          Hawaii              46             15              6            9%
        Illinois           8,249         15,555         11,904           33%
                Louisiana  8,625          4,011          1,420           10%
        Maryland          10,022         10,252          1,354            6%
    Massachusetts         18,210         22,015          4,556           10%
        Michigan           3,217            687            197            5%
       Minnesota           3,692          1,266          3,721           43%
        Missouri           4,391          3,823            117            1%
        Nebraska           3,446          7,065          1,794           15%
          Nevada           2,701          1,131          1,899           33%
      New Jersey          22,491         18,137          6,170           13%
      New Mexico               0              0              0            --
        New York          48,100         15,203         47,128           43%
    North Carolina         5,180          7,950            454            3%
            Ohio           5,781          1,313          1,562           18%
          Oregon           4,179          1,254            699           11%
    Pennsylvania          10,934          6,793            880            5%
       Tennessee           5,207          5,417          5,254           33%
           Texas          34,041         38,170          7,895           10%
            Utah           3,702          1,305            712           12%
        Virginia          11,816          7,454         16,455           46%
      Washington           3,247          1,157          7,182           62%
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    * Not all states have Immigration Courts based in them.

    Conclusion
        In this report, TRAC examined half of the total (but likely
    undercounted) 1.6 million pending asylum applications, specifically the
    nearly 800,000 asylum applications in the Immigration Court backlog.
    Regardless of the many reasons for the growth in outstanding asylum
    applications, this large and growing number of applications has real
    consequences for the U.S. immigration system, for public and political
    discussion about asylum policy, and certainly for asylum seekers
    themselves. By taking a closer data-driven look at who is affected,
    where asylum cases are being heard, and how the Courts are processing
    these cases, TRAC hopes to provide a sober foundation for public
    understanding and debate.

              TRAC is a nonpartisan, nonprofit data research center
            affiliated with the Newhouse School of Public Communications
            [13] and the Whitman School of
            Management,[14] both at Syracuse
            University.[15] For more information, to subscribe,
            or to donate, contact trac@syr.edu or call 315-443-3563.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \[13]\ http://newhouse.syr.edu/.
        \[14]\ http://whitman.syr.edu/.
        \[15]\ http://www.syr.edu/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     ______

         Submitted Statute Excerpt by Hon. Abigail Davis Spanberger, a
                    Representative in Congress from Virginia
    [https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2021-title7/pdf/USCODE-
    2021-title7-chap51-sec2015.pdf]
    United States Code, Title 7_Agriculture, Chapter 51_Supplemental
            Nutrition Assistance Program, Sec. 2015_Eligibility
            disqualifications
              * * * * *
    (e) Students
        No individual who is a member of a household otherwise eligible to
    participate in the supplemental nutrition assistance program under this
    section shall be eligible to participate in the supplemental nutrition
    assistance program as a member of that or any other household if the
    individual is enrolled at least half-time in an institution of higher
    education, unless the individual--

              (1) is under age 18 or is age 50 or older;
              (2) is not physically or mentally fit;
              (3) is assigned to or placed in an institution of higher
            education through or in compliance with the requirements of--

                      (A) a program under title I of the Workforce
                    Innovation and Opportunity Act [29 U.S.C. 3111 et
                    seq.];
                      (B) an employment and training program under this
                    section, subject to the condition that the course or
                    program of study--

                              (i) is part of a program of career and
                            technical education (as defined in section 2302
                            of title 20) that may be completed in not more
                            than 4 years at an institution of higher
                            education (as defined in section 1002 of title
                            20); or
                              (ii) is limited to remedial courses, basic
                            adult education, literacy, or English as a
                            second language;

                      (C) a program under section 2296 of title 19; or
                      (D) another program for the purpose of employment and
                    training operated by a state or local government, as
                    determined to be appropriate by the Secretary;

              (4) is employed a minimum of 20 hours per week or
            participating in a state or federally financed work study
            program during the regular school year;
              (5) is--

                      (A) a parent with responsibility for the care of a
                    dependent child under age 6; or
                      (B) a parent with responsibility for the care of a
                    dependent child above the age of 5 and under the age of
                    12 for whom adequate child care is not available to
                    enable the individual to attend class and satisfy the
                    requirements of paragraph (4);
                      (6) is receiving benefits under a state program
                    funded under part A of title IV of the Social Security
                    Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
                      (7) is so enrolled as a result of participation in
                    the work incentive program under title IV of the Social
                    Security Act [42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.] or its successor
                    programs; or
                      (8) is enrolled full-time in an institution of higher
                    education, as determined by the institution, and is a
                    single parent with responsibility for the care of a
                    dependent child under age 12.
              * * * * *
    (o) Work requirement
        (1) ``Work program'' defined

              In this subsection, the term ``work program'' means--

                      (A) a program under title I of the Workforce
                    Innovation and Opportunity Act [29 U.S.C. 3111 et
                    seq.];
                      (B) a program under section 2296 of title 19;
                      (C) a program of employment and training operated or
                    supervised by a state or political subdivision of a
                    state that meets standards approved by the Governor of
                    the state, including a program under subsection (d)(4),
                    other than a supervised job search program or job
                    search training program;
                      (D) a program of employment and training for veterans
                    operated by the Department of Labor or the Department
                    of Veterans Affairs, and approved by the Secretary; and
                      (E) a workforce partnership under subsection
                    (d)(4)(N).
        (2) Work requirement

              Subject to the other provisions of this subsection, no
            individual shall be eligible to participate in the supplemental
            nutrition assistance program as a member of any household if,
            during the preceding 36 month period, the individual received
            supplemental nutrition assistance program benefits for not less
            than 3 months (consecutive or otherwise) during which the
            individual did not--

                      (A) work 20 hours or more per week, averaged monthly;
                      (B) participate in and comply with the requirements
                    of a work program for 20 hours or more per week, as
                    determined by the state agency;
                      (C) participate in and comply with the requirements
                    of a program under section 2029 of this title or a
                    comparable program established by a state or political
                    subdivision of a state; or
                      (D) receive benefits pursuant to paragraph (3), (4),
                    (5), or (6).
        (3) Exception

              Paragraph (2) shall not apply to an individual if the
            individual is--

                      (A) under 18 or over 50 years of age;
                      (B) medically certified as physically or mentally
                    unfit for employment;
                      (C) a parent or other member of a household with
                    responsibility for a dependent child;
                      (D) otherwise exempt under subsection (d)(2); or
                      (E) a pregnant woman.
        (4) Waiver

              (A) In general

                      On the request of a state agency and with the support
                    of the chief executive officer of the state, the
                    Secretary may waive the applicability of paragraph (2)
                    to any group of individuals in the state if the
                    Secretary makes a determination that the area in which
                    the individuals reside--

                              (i) has an unemployment rate of over 10
                            percent; or
                              (ii) does not have a sufficient number of
                            jobs to provide employment for the individuals.

              (B) Report

                      The Secretary shall report the basis for a waiver
                    under subparagraph (A) to the Committee on Agriculture
                    of the House of Representatives and the Committee on
                    Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate.

        (5) Subsequent eligibility

              (A) Regaining eligibility

                      An individual denied eligibility under paragraph (2)
                    shall regain eligibility to participate in the
                    supplemental nutrition assistance program if, during a
                    30 day period, the individual--

                              (i) works 80 or more hours;
                              (ii) participates in and complies with the
                            requirements of a work program for 80 or more
                            hours, as determined by a state agency; or
                              (iii) participates in and complies with the
                            requirements of a program under section 2029 of
                            this title or a comparable program established
                            by a state or political subdivision of a state.

              (B) Maintaining eligibility

                      An individual who regains eligibility under
                    subparagraph (A) shall remain eligible as long as the
                    individual meets the requirements of subparagraph (A),
                    (B), or (C) of paragraph (2).

              (C) Loss of employment

                      (i) In general

                              An individual who regained eligibility under
                            subparagraph (A) and who no longer meets the
                            requirements of subparagraph (A), (B), or (C)
                            of paragraph (2) shall remain eligible for a
                            consecutive 3 month period, beginning on the
                            date the individual first notifies the state
                            agency that the individual no longer meets the
                            requirements of subparagraph (A), (B), or (C)
                            of paragraph (2).

                      (ii) Limitation

                              An individual shall not receive any benefits
                            pursuant to clause (i) for more than a single 3
                            month period in any 36 month period.

              (6) Exemptions

                      (A) Definitions

                              In this paragraph:

                                      (i) Caseload

                                              The term ``caseload'' means
                                            the average monthly number of
                                            individuals receiving
                                            supplemental nutrition
                                            assistance program benefits
                                            during the 12 month period
                                            ending the preceding June 30.

                                      (ii) Covered individual

                                              The term ``covered
                                            individual'' means a member of
                                            a household that receives
                                            supplemental nutrition
                                            assistance program benefits, or
                                            an individual denied
                                            eligibility for supplemental
                                            nutrition assistance program
                                            benefits solely due to
                                            paragraph (2), who--

                                                      (I) is not eligible
                                                    for an exception under
                                                    paragraph (3);
                                                      (II) does not reside
                                                    in an area covered by a
                                                    waiver granted under
                                                    paragraph (4);
                                                      (III) is not
                                                    complying with
                                                    subparagraph (A), (B),
                                                    or (C) of paragraph
                                                    (2);
                                                      (IV) is not receiving
                                                    supplemental nutrition
                                                    assistance program
                                                    benefits during the 3
                                                    months of eligibility
                                                    provided under
                                                    paragraph (2); and
                                                      (V) is not receiving
                                                    supplemental nutrition
                                                    assistance program
                                                    benefits under
                                                    paragraph (5).

                      (B) General rule

                              Subject to subparagraphs (C) through (H), a
                            state agency may provide an exemption from the
                            requirements of paragraph (2) for covered
                            individuals.

                      (C) Fiscal year 1998

                              Subject to subparagraphs (F) and (H), for
                            fiscal year 1998, a state agency may provide a
                            number of exemptions such that the average
                            monthly number of the exemptions in effect
                            during the fiscal year does not exceed 15
                            percent of the number of covered individuals in
                            the state in fiscal year 1998, as estimated by
                            the Secretary, based on the survey conducted to
                            carry out section 2025(c) of this title for
                            fiscal year 1996 and such other factors as the
                            Secretary considers appropriate due to the
                            timing and limitations of the survey.

                      (D) Fiscal years 1999 through 2019

                              Subject to subparagraphs (F) through (H), for
                            fiscal year 1999 and each subsequent fiscal
                            year through fiscal year 2019, a state agency
                            may provide a number of exemptions such that
                            the average monthly number of the exemptions in
                            effect during the fiscal year does not exceed
                            15 percent of the number of covered individuals
                            in the state, as estimated by the Secretary
                            under subparagraph (C), adjusted by the
                            Secretary to reflect changes in the state's
                            caseload and the Secretary's estimate of
                            changes in the proportion of members of
                            households that receive supplemental nutrition
                            assistance program benefits covered by waivers
                            granted under paragraph (4).

                      (E) Subsequent fiscal years

                              Subject to subparagraphs (F) through (H), for
                            Fiscal Year 2020 and each subsequent fiscal
                            year, a state agency may provide a number of
                            exemptions such that the average monthly number
                            of exemptions in effect during the fiscal year
                            does not exceed 12 percent of the number of
                            covered individuals in the state, as estimated
                            by the Secretary under subparagraph (C),
                            adjusted by the Secretary to reflect changes in
                            the state's caseload and the Secretary's
                            estimate of changes in the proportion of
                            members of households that receive supplemental
                            nutrition assistance program benefits covered
                            by waivers granted under paragraph (4).

                      (F) Caseload adjustments

                              The Secretary shall adjust the number of
                            individuals estimated for a state under
                            subparagraph (C), (D), or (E) during a fiscal
                            year if the number of members of households
                            that receive supplemental nutrition assistance
                            program benefits in the state varies from the
                            state's caseload by more than 10 percent, as
                            determined by the Secretary.

                      (G) Exemption adjustments

                              During fiscal year 1999 and each subsequent
                            fiscal year, the Secretary shall increase or
                            decrease the number of individuals who may be
                            granted an exemption by a state agency under
                            this paragraph to the extent that the average
                            monthly number of exemptions in effect in the
                            state for the preceding fiscal year under this
                            paragraph is lesser or greater than the average
                            monthly number of exemptions estimated for the
                            state agency for such preceding fiscal year
                            under this paragraph.

                      (H) Reporting requirement

                              A state agency shall submit such reports to
                            the Secretary as the Secretary determines are
                            necessary to ensure compliance with this
                            paragraph.

              (7) Other program rules

                      Nothing in this subsection shall make an individual
                    eligible for benefits under this chapter if the
                    individual is not otherwise eligible for benefits under
                    the other provisions of this chapter.
              * * * * *
    (Pub. L. 88-525,  6, Aug. 31, 1964, 78 Stat. 704; Pub. L. 94-339,  3,
    July 5, 1976, 90 Stat. 800; Pub. L. 95-113, title XIII,  1301, Sept.
    29, 1977, 91 Stat. 964; Pub. L. 96-58,  5, 9, Aug. 14, 1979, 93 Stat.
    391, 392; Pub. L. 96-249, title I,  109, 110, 114, 115, 139, 140, May
    26, 1980, 94 Stat. 359, 361, 370; Pub. L. 97-35, title I,  108(b),
    (c), 109, 112, Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 361, 362; Pub. L. 97-98, title
    XIII,  1310, 1311, Dec. 22, 1981, 95 Stat. 1284, 1285; Pub. L. 97-
    253, title I,  145(e), 154-161, 189(b)(1), 190(a), (b), Sept. 8,
    1982, 96 Stat. 774, 777, 778, 787; Pub. L. 98-204,  5, 6, Dec. 2,
    1983, 97 Stat. 1385, 1386; Pub. L. 99-198, title XV,  1513(b), 1516,
    1517(a), Dec. 23, 1985, 99 Stat. 1571-1573; Pub. L. 100-435, title II,
     202(b), (c), title IV,  404(a)-(d), Sept. 19, 1988, 102 Stat. 1656,
    1665-1667; Pub. L. 101-624, title XVII,  1723-1726(b)(1), (c), (d),
    1727, Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 3786-3788; Pub. L. 102-237, title IX,
    907, 941(3), Dec. 13, 1991, 105 Stat. 1885, 1892; Pub. L. 103-66, title
    XIII,  13922(b), 13942, Aug. 10, 1993, 107 Stat. 675, 677; Pub. L.
    103-225, title I,  101(a), 104(b), Mar. 25, 1994, 108 Stat. 106, 107;
    Pub. L. 103-296, title I,  108(f)(1), (2), Aug. 15, 1994, 108 Stat.
    1486, 1487; Pub. L. 104-193, title I,  109(b), title VIII,  813-
    815(a), 816, 817(a), 818, 819(a), (c), 820-824(a), Aug. 22, 1996, 110
    Stat. 2169, 2314, 2315, 2318, 2320-2323; Pub. L. 104-208, div. C, title
    III,  308(g)(7)(D)(i), Sept. 30, 1996, 110 Stat. 3009-624; Pub. L.
    105-33, title I,  1001, Aug. 5, 1997, 111 Stat. 251; Pub. L. 105-277,
    div. A,  101(f) [title VIII,  405(d)(2)(B), (f)(2)(B)], Oct. 21,
    1998, 112 Stat. 2681-337, 2681-418, 2681-429; Pub. L. 107-171, title
    IV,  4109, 4115(b)(2), 4121(c), May 13, 2002, 116 Stat. 309, 315,
    324; Pub. L. 110-234, title IV,  4001(b), 4002(a)(3), 4105, 4108,
    4112, 4115(b)(4), 4131, May 22, 2008, 122 Stat. 1092, 1101, 1102, 1106,
    1114; Pub. L. 110-246,  4(a), title IV,  4001(b), 4002(a)(3), 4105,
    4108, 4112, 4115(b)(4), 4131, June 18, 2008, 122 Stat. 1664, 1853,
    1862-1864, 1868, 1875; Pub. L. 113-79, title IV,  4007, 4008(a),
    4009(a), 4030(d), Feb. 7, 2014, 128 Stat. 787-789, 814; Pub. L. 113-
    128, title V,  512(l)(2), July 22, 2014, 128 Stat. 1709; Pub. L. 115-
    334, title IV,  4005(a), (b), Dec. 20, 2018, 132 Stat. 4627-4631.)
    Editorial Notes
    References in Text
        The Social Security Act, referred to in subsecs. (c)(3), (5),
    (d)(1)(D)(iii)(II), (2), (4)(I)(i)(II), (K), (e)(6), (7), (g), (i)(2),
    (l)(1), (3), (m), and (n)(2)(B), is act Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, 49
    Stat. 620, which is classified generally to chapter 7 ( 301 et seq.)
    of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare. Part D of title IV of the
    Act is classified generally to part D ( 651 et seq.) of subchapter IV
    of chapter 7 of Title 42. Title IV-A of the Act (part A of title IV) is
    classified generally to part A ( 601 et seq.) of subchapter IV of
    chapter 7 of Title 42. Titles IV and XVI of the Social Security Act are
    classified generally to subchapters IV ( 601 et seq.) and XVI ( 1381
    et seq.), respectively, of chapter 7 of Title 42. For complete
    classification of this Act to the Code, see section 1305 of Title 42
    and Tables.
        The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, referred to in subsec.
    (d)(2), (4)(B)(ii)(I)(cc), (F)(i), is act June 25, 1938, ch. 676, 52
    Stat. 1060, which is classified generally to chapter 8 ( 201 et seq.)
    of Title 29, Labor. For complete classification of this Act to the
    Code, see section 201 of Title 29 and Tables.
        The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, referred to in
    subsecs. (d)(4)(M), (e)(3)(A), and (o)(1)(A), is Pub. L. 113-128, July
    22, 2014, 128 Stat. 1425. Title I of the Act is classified generally to
    subchapter I ( 3111 et seq.) of chapter 32 of Title 29, Labor. For
    complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note
    set out under section 3101 of Title 29 and Tables.
        Section 212(a) of Pub. L. 93-66, referred to in subsec. (g), is
    Pub. L. 93-66, title II,  212(a), July 9, 1973, 87 Stat. 155, which is
    set out as a note under section 1382 of Title 42, The Public Health and
    Welfare.
    Codification
        Pub. L. 110-234 and Pub. L. 110-246 made identical amendments to
    this section. The amendments by Pub. L. 110-234 were repealed by
    section 4(a) of Pub. L. 110-246.
              * * * * *
    Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries
    Effective Date of 2014 Amendments
        Amendment by Pub. L. 113-128 effective on the first day of the
    first full program year after July 22, 2014 (July 1, 2015), see section
    506 of Pub. L. 113-128, set out as an Effective Date note under section
    3101 of Title 29, Labor.
        Amendment by section 4008(a) of Pub. L. 113-79 inapplicable to a
    conviction if the conviction is for conduct occurring on or before Feb.
    7, 2014, see section 4008(c) of Pub. L. 113-79, set out as a note under
    section 2014 of this title.
    Effective Date of 2008 Amendment
        Amendment of this section and repeal of Pub. L. 110-234 by Pub. L.
    110-246 effective May 22, 2008, the date of enactment of Pub. L. 110-
    234, except as otherwise provided, see section 4 of Pub. L. 110-246,
    set out as an Effective Date note under section 8701 of this title.
        Amendment by sections 4001(b), 4002(a)(3), 4105, 4108, 4112,
    4115(b)(4), and 4131 of Pub. L. 110-246 effective Oct. 1, 2008, see
    section 4407 of Pub. L. 110-246, set out as a note under section 1161
    of Title 2, The Congress.
    Effective Date of 2002 Amendment
        Pub. L. 107-171, title IV,  4121(e), May 13, 2002, 116 Stat. 324,
    provided that: ``The amendments made by this section [amending this
    section and section 2025 of this title] take effect on the date of
    enactment of this Act [May 13, 2002].''
        Amendment by sections 4109, 4115(b)(2) of Pub. L. 107-171 effective
    Oct. 1, 2002, except as otherwise provided, see section 4405 of Pub. L.
    107-171, set out as an Effective Date note under section 1161 of Title
    2, The Congress.
    Effective Date of 1998 Amendment
        Amendment by section 101(f) [title VIII,  405(d)(2)(B)] of Pub. L.
    105-277 effective Oct. 21, 1998, and amendment by section 101(f) [title
    VIII,  405(f)(2)(B)] of Pub. L. 105-277 effective July 1, 2000, see
    section 101(f) [title VIII,  405(g)(1), (2)(B)] of Pub. L. 105-277,
    set out as a note under section 3502 of Title 5, Government
    Organization and Employees.
    Effective Date of 1997 Amendment
        Pub. L. 105-33, title I,  1005(b), Aug. 5, 1997, 111 Stat. 257,
    provided that: ``The amendments made by sections 1001 and 1002
    [amending this section and section 2025 of this title] take effect on
    October 1, 1997, without regard to whether regulations have been
    promulgated to implement the amendments made by such sections.''
    Effective Date of 1996 Amendments
        Amendment by Pub. L. 104-208 effective, with certain transitional
    provisions, on the first day of the first month beginning more than 180
    days after Sept. 30, 1996, see section 309 of Pub. L. 104-208, set out
    as a note under section 1101 of Title 8, Aliens and Nationality.
        Amendment by section 109(b) of Pub. L. 104-193 effective July 1,
    1997, with transition rules relating to state options to accelerate
    such date, rules relating to claims, actions, and proceedings commenced
    before such date, rules relating to closing out of accounts for
    terminated or substantially modified programs and continuance in office
    of Assistant Secretary for Family Support, and provisions relating to
    termination of entitlement under AFDC program, see section 116 of Pub.
    L. 104-193, as amended, set out as an Effective Date note under section
    601 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare.
    Effective Date of 1994 Amendment
        Amendment by Pub. L. 103-296 effective Mar. 31, 1995, see section
    110(a) of Pub. L. 103-296, set out as a note under section 401 of Title
    42, The Public Health and Welfare.
    Effective Date of 1993 Amendment
        Amendment by Pub. L. 103-66 effective, and to be implemented
    beginning on, Sept. 1, 1994, see section 13971(b)(4) of Pub. L. 103-66,
    set out as a note under section 2025 of this title.
    Effective Date of 1991 Amendment
        Amendment by section 908 [probably should be 907] of Pub. L. 102-
    237 effective Sept. 30, 1991, and amendment by section 941(3) of Pub.
    L. 102-237 effective and to be implemented no later than Feb. 1, 1992,
    see section 1101(d)(1), (3) of Pub. L. 102-237, set out as a note under
    section 1421 of this title.
    Effective Date of 1990 Amendment
        Amendment by Pub. L. 101-624 effective and implemented first day of
    month beginning 120 days after publication of implementing regulations
    to be promulgated not later than Oct. 1, 1991, see section 1781(a) of
    Pub. L. 101-624, set out as a note under section 2012 of this title.
    Effective Date of 1988 Amendment
        Amendment by sections 202(b), (c) and 404(a)(2)-(4), (b), (d) of
    Pub. L. 100-435 to be effective and implemented on Oct. 1, 1988, and
    amendment by section 404(a)(1), (c) of Pub. L. 100-435 to be effective
    and implemented on July 1, 1989, except that amendment by section 404
    of Pub. L. 100-435 to become effective and implemented on Oct. 1, 1989,
    if final order is issued under section 902(b) of Title 2, The Congress,
    for fiscal year 1989 making reductions and sequestrations specified in
    the report required under section 901(a)(3)(A) of Title 2, see section
    701(a), (b)(4), (c)(2) of Pub. L. 100-435, set out as a note under
    section 2012 of this title.
    Effective Date of 1982 Amendment
        Amendment by Pub. L. 97-253 effective Sept. 8, 1982, see section
    193(a) of Pub. L. 97-253, set out as a note under section 2012 of this
    title.
    Effective Date of 1981 Amendments
        Amendment by Pub. L. 97-35, except section 108(c) of Pub. L. 97-35
    (which amended this section), effective on earlier of Sept. 8, 1982, or
    date such amendment became effective pursuant to section 117 of Pub. L.
    97-35, set out as a note under section 2012 of this title, see section
    192(a) of Pub. L. 97-253, set out as a note under section 2012 of this
    title.
        Amendment by Pub. L. 97-98 effective on earlier of Sept. 8, 1982,
    or date such amendment became effective pursuant to section 1338 of
    Pub. L. 97-98, set out as a note under section 2012 of this title. See
    section 192(b) of Pub. L. 97-253, set out as a note under section 2012
    of this title.
        Amendment by Pub. L. 97-98 effective upon such date as Secretary of
    Agriculture may prescribe, taking into account need for orderly
    implementation, see section 1338 of Pub. L. 97-98, set out as a note
    under section 2012 of this title.
        Amendments by Pub. L. 97-35, except for amendment made by section
    108(c) of Pub. L. 97-35, effective and implemented upon such dates as
    Secretary of Agriculture may prescribe, taking into account need for
    orderly implementation, see section 117 of Pub. L. 97-35, set out as a
    note under section 2012 of this title.
        Pub. L. 97-35, title I,  108(c), Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 361,
    provided that the amendment made by section 108(c) is effective Oct. 1,
    1983.
    Effective Date of 1979 Amendment
        Secretary of Agriculture to issue final regulations implementing
    the amendment of subsec. (b) of this section by Pub. L. 96-58 within
    150 days after Aug. 14, 1979, see section 10(b) of Pub. L. 96-58, set
    out as a note under section 2012 of this title.
    Effective Date of 1977 Amendment
        Pub. L. 95-113, title XIII,  1301, Sept. 29, 1977, 91 Stat. 958,
    provided that the amendment made by section 1301 is effective Oct. 1,
    1977.
    Regulations
        Pub. L. 105-33, title I,  1005(a), Aug. 5, 1997, 111 Stat. 257,
    provided that: ``Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of
    this Act [Aug. 5, 1997], the Secretary of Agriculture shall promulgate
    such regulations as are necessary to implement the amendments made by
    this title [amending this section and sections 2020 and 2025 of this
    title].''
    Abolition of Immigration and Naturalization Service and Transfer of
            Functions
        For abolition of Immigration and Naturalization Service, transfer
    of functions, and treatment of related references, see note set out
    under section 1551 of Title 8, Aliens and Nationality.
    Transition Provision For Work Requirement
        Pub. L. 104-193, title VIII,  824(b), Aug. 22, 1996, 110 Stat.
    2324, provided that: ``The term `preceding 36 month period' in section
    6(o) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 [now the Food and Nutrition Act of
    2008, 7 U.S.C. 2015(o)], as added by subsection (a), does not include,
    with respect to a state, any period before the earlier of--

              ``(1) the date the state notifies recipients of food stamp
            benefits of the application of section 6(o); or
              ``(2) the date that is 3 months after the date of enactment
            of this Act [Aug. 22, 1996].''
    Exemption From Monthly Reporting Systems for Households Residing on
            Indian Reservations
        Pub. L. 102-237, title IX,  908(a)(2), Dec. 13, 1991, 105 Stat.
    1886, as amended by Pub. L. 103-11,  1, Apr. 1, 1993, 107 Stat. 41;
    Pub. L. 103-205,  1, Dec. 17, 1993, 107 Stat. 2418, provided that no
    state agency be required to exempt households residing on Indian
    reservations from food stamp program monthly reporting systems until
    Mar. 15, 1994, and directed Secretary of Agriculture to issue final
    regulations requiring exemption of households residing on Indian
    reservations from food stamp program monthly reporting systems no later
    than Dec. 1, 1992, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 103-225, title I,
    104(a), Mar. 25, 1994, 108 Stat. 107.
    Mandatory Monthly Reporting--Retrospective Budgeting for Food Stamp
            Program; Prohibition
        Pub. L. 98-107,  101(b), Oct. 1, 1983, 97 Stat. 735, provided in
    part that no part of any of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
    available by Pub. L. 98-107 or any other Act could be used to implement
    mandatory monthly reporting--retrospective budgeting for the food stamp
    program during the first 3 months of the fiscal year ending Sept. 30,
    1984.
                                     ______

     Submitted Letter by Hon. Andrea Salinas, a Representative in Congress
          from Oregon; on Behalf of Marc Egan, Director of Government
                   Relations, National Education Association
    June 6, 2023

      Committee on Agriculture
      U.S. House of Representatives
      Washington, D.C.

        Dear Representative:

        On behalf of the three million members of the National Education
    Association, who teach and support nearly 50 million students in public
    schools across America, thank you for holding this hearing,
    ``Innovation, Employment, Integrity, and Health: Opportunities for
    Modernization in Title IV.'' We submit these comments for the record.
        NEA members are teachers and education support professionals in
    14,000 communities nationwide. They know firsthand that hungry students
    cannot focus on learning. The Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023
    included additional work requirements that place 750,000 adults at risk
    of losing food assistance,\1\ * according to the Center on Budget and
    Policy Priorities (CBPP), placing their families at higher risk for
    food insecurity as well. Therefore, it is essential that you take steps
    to protect and strengthen SNAP, our nation's largest Federal food
    assistance program and the first line of defense against childhood
    hunger.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/debt-ceiling-
    agreements-snap-changes-would-increase-hunger-and-poverty-for.
        * Editor's note: references annotated with  are retained in
    Committee file.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Approximately \2/3\ of SNAP households include a child, an older
    person, or an individual with a disability, according to the CBPP.\2\
    Millions of working-age SNAP recipients already work; in fact, a
    Government Accountability Office analysis of employment data from 11
    states found that 70 percent of adult SNAP recipients hold at least one
    job.\3\ SNAP serves a crucial role in the lives of these workers, who
    sometimes hold multiple, low-paying jobs with unreliable hours and
    scant benefits, or no benefits at all. For them, any unexpected
    expense, health crisis, or other unforeseen emergency could force a
    choice between buying groceries, or paying a bill. Among these SNAP
    recipients are approximately ten percent of education support
    professionals and approximately 16 percent of the school food
    professionals who serve students healthy meals.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/the-supplemental-
    nutrition-assistance-program-snap.
        \3\ https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-21-45.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        By providing monthly benefits to eligible low-income individuals,
    SNAP is crucial in reducing hunger, malnutrition, and poverty,
    enhancing families' overall sense of security, and improving child and
    adult health. Children living in SNAP households are automatically
    certified to receive free school meals, which help fight hunger and
    promote student health and lead to greater student growth, development,
    and learning. But, given the expiration of both USDA waivers for free
    school meals for all students and emergency SNAP allotments, many more
    children and families are experiencing hunger. Congress must make SNAP
    benefits more robust so that children can have healthy meals not only
    at home, but also at school.

        NEA members urge you to enhance Title IV and SNAP benefits by:

        Ensuring that benefits reflect the economic hardships families and
    individuals face. SNAP benefits should be based on the Low-Cost Food
    Plan, which better aligns with household costs, permits greater food
    variety, and supports healthier diets than the Thrifty Food Plan (TFP).
    TFP is based on premises that do not hold true for all families and
    individuals, such as the assumption that everyone has access to full-
    service grocery stores that carry fresh produce and whole-grain
    products. The TFP also assumes healthier foods are affordable and
    similarly priced across the country, but these foods are often more
    costly than foods that are higher in sodium and sugar, and therefore
    less healthy.
        Removing the shelter deduction cap. The current shelter deduction
    cap of $623 is a fraction of the actual $2,000 cost of median rent.
    This arbitrary cap does not capture the rising cost of housing and
    penalizes families and individuals for our current runaway housing
    market. Removing the shelter deduction cap will allow families to spend
    more on food.
        Eliminating the time limits on SNAP eligibility. People who are
    unemployed and underemployed should not be penalized for being unable
    to document sufficient hours of work each month.
        Enacting a standard medical-expense deduction. A standard medical
    deduction of at least $140 would increase recipients' monthly benefit.
    Currently, only 12 percent of households that are eligible for the
    medical deduction claim it, despite the high out-of-pocket medical
    costs many SNAP families face.
        Extending SNAP benefits to college students. Recent studies
    estimate that as many as 50 percent of college students \4\ have
    experienced food insecurity, and fewer than 40 percent earn a
    certificate or degree within 6 years. The rising cost of education,
    housing, and food is not only pushing more college students into food
    insecurity; it makes finishing college, achieving self-sufficiency, and
    entering the workforce more difficult and time-consuming. Removing the
    overly burdensome work-study and minimum employment requirements on
    college students would put them on equal footing with other eligible
    SNAP participants.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ https://drexel.edu/hunger-free-center/news-events/voices-blog/
    2021/December/college-student-food-insecurity/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Strengthening food and nutrition security in our most vulnerable
    communities. One in four Native Americans experiences food insecurity
    compared to one in nine Americans overall, according to Feeding
    America.\5\ Currently, individuals who receive benefits from the Food
    Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR) cannot also use
    SNAP benefits within the same month. Congress can address this gap in
    services by:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ https://hungerandhealth.feedingamerica.org/2020/11/november-
    native-american-heritage-month/.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Permitting the simultaneous use of SNAP and FDPIR;

       Allowing Tribal nations to administer SNAP by granting the
            USDA Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) the requisite 638
            authority; and

       Increasing funding to expand FDPIR's self-determination
            projects.

        Granting SNAP assistance to parents with prior drug-related felony
    convictions. Parents with drug-related felony convictions have paid
    their dues; they should not be ``doubly punished'' by being denied
    assistance to get back on their feet. Meeting their basic food needs
    with SNAP benefits will help position them--and their children--for
    success.
        Students' opportunity to thrive should not be limited because they
    lack the nourishment needed for healthy development. All students
    deserve the support to learn, and having access to robust SNAP benefits
    will create the conditions for academic engagement and achievement. We
    urge you to support a strong nutrition Title IV in farm bill
    negotiations.
                Sincerely,

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Marc Egan,
    Director of Government Relations,
    National Education Association.
                                     ______

       Submitted Statement by Hon. Donald G. Davis, a Representative in
    Congress from North Carolina; on Behalf of MAZON: A Jewish Response to
                                     Hunger
        Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Scott, and distinguished Members
    of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to share this statement
    for the record from MAZON: A Jewish Response to Hunger for this hearing
    on opportunities for modernization in Title IV in the farm bill.
        Inspired by Jewish values and ideals, MAZON: A Jewish Response to
    Hunger is a national organization fighting to end hunger among people
    of all faiths and backgrounds in the United States and Israel. MAZON is
    not just a Jewish response to hunger, it is the the Jewish response to
    hunger. In Jewish tradition--and across all faith traditions--there is
    a fundamental value of taking care of the most vulnerable among us. In
    Leviticus, we are commanded to leave the corners of our fields and the
    gleanings of our harvest and vineyards for the poor and the stranger.
    This commandment is a clear expression of our collective responsibility
    for each other. It reminds us that we are not to judge those who are
    poor, nor should we assume to know the circumstances of their lives.
    Its wisdom respects the dignity of every human being, all created in
    the image of God, by empowering individuals to decide what they need,
    not presuming to know what is best for them.
        When he founded MAZON in 1985, Leibel Fein (of blessed memory)
    posed challenging questions that drew upon Jewish texts and traditions
    and envisioned the possibilities for the Federal Government in
    fulfilling our collective responsibility to address hunger in the
    United States:

              ``Can we move from the language of kindness to the language
            of justice? Can we move from philanthropic sensibility to
            political commitment? MAZON's work is a step. It moves us from
            indifference to charity, but the question is whether we can
            then be moved from charity to advocacy, thence to policy?''

        Leibel's questions remain relevant and urgent today as Congress
    takes up the farm bill reauthorization. We will never ``food bank'' our
    way to an end of hunger. Responsibility for addressing this far-
    reaching and preventable crisis cannot be abdicated by the Federal
    Government and passed off to a charitable sector that does not have the
    capacity nor the purview to achieve the necessary systemic changes and
    fully address the problem. Regardless of a person's circumstance, no
    one deserves to be hungry.
        This hearing takes place in the wake of proposals by some in
    Congress to make cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
    (SNAP) and other safety net programs in the name of deficit reduction
    and as a bargaining chip to raise the debt ceiling and avoid
    catastrophic default. There is a stark moral deficit in such
    ideologically driven proposals made on the backs of low-income
    Americans. Our country and our leaders should be held accountable for
    how they treat those in need. It is reprehensible that some politicians
    and pundits continue to perpetuate harmful stereotypes and place blame
    on the very people who face challenges.
        We must prioritize policy solutions that reduce hunger and hardship
    rather than policies that exacerbate stigma and struggle. The farm bill
    reauthorization presents a meaningful and timely opportunity to
    reinforce our collective values and strengthen our nation through fair,
    just, and compassionate policies that fulfill our collective
    responsibility for each other and provide life-saving support for those
    who struggle with hunger. This is rightly the role and responsibility
    of the Federal Government.
        The rhetoric employed in recent weeks by some in Congress and the
    media has been incredibly problematic and harmful. Speaking about a
    safety net program as a work program, repeating myths and
    misinformation about SNAP participants, and calling into question who
    is ``deserving'' of assistance to justify restrictions and cuts leads
    to dangerous consequences. It hurts veterans and others by reinforcing
    negative stereotypes and adding to the stigma that limits SNAP
    participation. It hurts older adults on fixed incomes. It hurts
    families living paycheck to paycheck. It hurts women and people of
    color, who disproportionately endure hunger and poverty. And this mean-
    spirited and ideological agenda hurts us all--because food insecurity
    is devastating at a personal level and costly for our society.
        MAZON was disappointed both in the process and policy outcome of
    the debt ceiling negotiations, and we remain deeply concerned about how
    these will impact the farm bill. Regarding process, raising the debt
    ceiling should be separate from important decisions around budget and
    appropriations. It was irresponsible to bring our country dangerously
    close to the brink of default and make policy changes that should have
    been considered in a different context.
        We have observed the carefully guarded policy of the House
    Committee on Agriculture over the years not to ``reopen the farm bill''
    out of cycle for legislative changes and matters within its scope. The
    Committee violated this principle by allowing statutory changes to SNAP
    to be included in the debt ceiling negotiations. This choice sets a
    concerning precedent and raises questions about the integrity and
    future actions of the Committee. Does this signal that the Committee
    will now be amendable to other policy changes that would normally be
    taken up in the farm bill cycle? Will this include changes to
    agriculture policy and other matters under its jurisdiction, or does
    this only apply to programs that serve low-income Americans? Will the
    Committee now be open to considering legislation outside of the farm
    bill to make improvements to nutrition assistance programs and help
    remove barriers to accessing them?
        In terms of the policy outcome, MAZON was disappointed that the
    Committee went along with the choice to cut Federal spending on the
    backs of those facing food insecurity in America. SNAP is our nation's
    most powerful anti-hunger program. SNAP is not a work program. It never
    was and it never should be. It is a safety net for those who fall on
    hard times and need help to put food on the table. We know historically
    from repeated studies that work requirements simply do not work. The
    overwhelming body of peer-reviewed research and respected analysis
    reflect that work requirements do not lead to long-term increases in
    earnings or employment outcomes. Instead, they reduce program
    participation by design, which increases hunger and hardship. This
    devastating impact will be felt more acutely by certain populations,
    such as older women who will now be subjected to arbitrary time limits
    for SNAP while they continue to face great challenges in securing
    stable employment.
        Not only will expanding work requirements for SNAP be ineffective,
    but this policy change signifies a historic and stunning shift in the
    definition of SNAP as a social safety net program--from decades of a
    values-based perspective to one that bends to political winds. This
    change, and the misguided rhetoric wielded to justify it, will
    exacerbate the stigma around SNAP that contributes to under-
    participation by millions of Americans who need the assistance. The
    judgments, stereotypes, and misinformed policy priorities for SNAP in
    the debt ceiling negotiations will create real harm for low-income
    Americans who struggle with food insecurity and for the farm bill
    process.
        The bottom line is that SNAP and other Federal nutrition assistance
    programs ensure that people can feed themselves and their families with
    dignity and choice, rather than forcing them to seek emergency
    assistance from an overwhelmed charitable sector. This Committee should
    use its power and leadership to ensure that Federal programs work as
    effectively as possible and reach all those in need of assistance to
    reduce food insecurity in this country. We fear that recent actions may
    result in the opposite, with more people falling through the cracks and
    struggling with food insecurity.
        MAZON is committed to shining a spotlight on issues and populations
    where the government and larger organizations have yet to turn their
    focus. Blanket solutions cannot meet the needs of every community, and
    our special focus has been pivotal to help remove the unique policy
    barriers that overlooked and challenged communities face in accessing
    adequate, nutritious food. These populations include currently serving
    military families, veterans, Indigenous communities, the people of
    Puerto Rico and the territories, single mothers, and LGBTQ+ older
    adults.
        The farm bill is one of the most transformational pieces of
    legislation that Congress regularly reauthorizes. In addition to
    authorizing SNAP and other Federal nutrition programs that serve tens
    of millions of Americans each year, the farm bill presents a unique
    opportunity to advance long-overdue policy solutions to the food
    security challenges of many of the aforementioned populations.
        In addition to the statement above that re-centers consideration of
    Title IV programs outside of the misguided, disingenuous, and cruel
    campaign to expand so-called work requirements to Federal safety net
    programs, MAZON is resharing our farm bill priorities below, which were
    submitted in our statement for a previous Committee hearing.
        Hunger in the United States, the wealthiest country in the world,
    is far too pervasive. And sadly, this crisis is preventable, but for
    the lack of the political will to realize the true sense of collective
    responsibility that is interwoven in the fabric of the American
    experiment. MAZON's farm bill priorities cover the needs of millions of
    Americans who routinely fall through the cracks and face barriers to
    receiving the vital food assistance to which they are entitled. Rather
    than imposing new barriers and restricting access to critical nutrition
    assistance programs, this Committee must take seriously its central
    responsibility to ensure that those who struggle with food insecurity
    have access to affordable, nutritious food.
        The farm bill must protect against hunger by strengthening and
    improving SNAP and other essential Federal nutrition assistance
    programs and remove barriers for struggling individuals and families;
    and increase access to affordable, nutritious food for vulnerable
    populations to support good nutrition and health. We urge you to
    reflect on our shared values, explore effective policy solutions, and
    act with compassion and humanity toward those among us experiencing
    hardship who need assistance. As such, the next farm bill must:
    Protect and Strengthen the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
            (SNAP) and Other Federal Nutrition Programs
       Maintain the update to the Thrifty Food Plan benefit and
            explore transition to more adequate benefit levels, including
            shifting to the Low-Cost Food Plan as the basis for SNAP
            benefit allotments.

       Prevent the reinstatement of harmful and ineffective work
            requirements/time limits for able-bodied adults without
            dependents or ``ABAWDs.''

       Streamline client access and eligibility standards for
            individuals seeking to benefit from The Emergency Food
            Assistance Program (TEFAP).
    Promote Food Security Among Active-Duty Military Families
       Eliminate the barrier to SNAP for low-income military
            families by excluding the Basic Allowance for Housing as
            counted income.
    Address Food Insecurity Among Veterans
       Lower the VA disability rating required for veterans for
            SNAP purposes.

       Support veteran access to affordable healthy foods and
            expand veteran farmers market nutrition programs and produce
            prescription programs through the Gus Schumacher Nutrition
            Incentive Program (GusNIP).

       Establish a veteran food security grant program open to
            states, Tribal Nations, and territories, and formalize the
            establishment of the Office of Veteran Food Security at the VA.

       Establish a transition assistance pilot program to support
            low-income military families as they separate from the Service
            and begin the transition back to civilian life.
    Empower Tribal Food Sovereignty and Address Food Insecurity in Indian
            Country
       Empower Tribal Nations to self-administer SNAP, the Food
            Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR), and The
            Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) using Section 638
            authority, if they choose to do so.

       Eliminate the prohibition on dual participation in SNAP and
            FDPIR.

       Allow Tribal eligibility for SNAP-Ed funds.

       Enable more Native-produced and culturally appropriate foods
            to be purchased as part of FDPIR, CSFP, and TEFAP, and CSFP and
            expand the traditional foods pilot program under FDPIR.
    Improve Equity and Food Security for the People of Puerto Rico
       Authorize plan for transition for Puerto Rico from the
            block-granted and inadequate Nutrition Assistance Program (NAP)
            back into SNAP.
    Remove Barriers to SNAP for Single Mothers
       Eliminate the state option in effect in several states that
            requires SNAP applicants to comply with state child support
            authorities.
    Improve Nutrition Support for LGBTQ+ Older Adults
       Expand SNAP access and participation for LGBTQ+ older adults
            through targeted outreach and develop innovative approaches to
            strengthen nutritional support for this community, including an
            understanding of and response to the nutritional needs of those
            aging with HIV or AIDS.

        MAZON urges the House Committee on Agriculture to strengthen and
    improve Federal nutrition programs in the 2023 Farm Bill process and
    ensure that in this land of plenty, there is plenty for all to eat. We
    stand ready with expertise, passion, and resolve to work together to
    achieve a farm bill that endeavors to end hunger in the United States.
                                     ______

        Submitted Letter by Hon. Salud O. Carbajal, a Representative in
      Congress from California; on Behalf of Stephanie Johnson, RDN, Vice
         President, Government Relations, National Grocers Association
    June 7, 2023

        The National Grocers Association (NGA) writes to provide a
    statement for the record for the U.S. House Committee on Agriculture
    hearing titled, ``Innovation, Employment, Integrity, and Health:
    Opportunities for Modernization in Title IV.'' We request that all
    Members publicly oppose any efforts that increase the administrative
    costs and retailer burden of SNAP by restricting what families can
    purchase in the grocery store.
        NGA is the national trade association representing retail and
    wholesale grocers that comprise the independent sector of the food
    retail and distribution industry. An independent community grocer is a
    privately owned or controlled food retail company operating in a
    variety of formats. Independents are the true ``entrepreneurs'' of the
    grocery industry and dedicated to their customers, associates, and
    communities. Much of NGA's membership is comprised of family-owned and
    family-operated small businesses. Nearly \1/2\ of NGA's members are
    single-store operators, and another \1/4\ operate less than five
    stores. Independent retail and wholesale grocers are an important part
    of America's economy. Independent community grocers account for 33% of
    all grocery sales, exceeding $250 billion, and more than 1.1 million
    American jobs. We are inherently tied to the strength and vitality of
    the markets we serve--at the heart of local communities and the U.S.
    economy. According to USDA Economic Research Service (ERS) analysis,
    independents tend to locate in the rural, low-income and underserved
    areas providing critical food access to Americans who would otherwise
    live in a food desert. Having often been in the business for
    generations, independent grocers are dedicated to their customers,
    associates, and communities.
        Federal nutrition programs are an important resource to struggling
    families and independent grocery stores are an indispensable partner in
    these programs. Retailers take pride in participating in the SNAP
    program to support their communities and local families in need.
    Independent grocers are committed to advancing access to healthy food
    in an equitable manner and maintaining SNAP choice is critical to those
    efforts.
        SNAP is a shining example of a public-private partnership. In 2020,
    SNAP was responsible for nearly 200,000 U.S. grocery industry jobs
    earning wages totaling more than $6.7 billion. SNAP not only works as
    it is intended but it also features one of the lowest error rates of
    any Federal program in existence. Independent community grocers are a
    key private partner with the Federal Government to administer SNAP and
    the program is critical to the health of local communities.
        One of the many reasons this program is successful is the ease of
    processing SNAP transactions for retailers and beneficiaries who can
    make their own decisions about which food items to purchase for their
    household. This choice ensures families can shop with the same dignity
    as any other grocery customer. Ill-conceived proposals to restrict the
    choices of SNAP participants would turn this efficient and effective
    program into an untested public health intervention overrun by
    bureaucracy.
        Restricting the choices of SNAP customers to items approved by the
    USDA will increase program implementation costs for the government and
    discourage business participation in the program. The government will
    need to categorize more than 600,000 products and thousands more each
    year to create and maintain a food code to determine what foods can be
    purchased with SNAP. Grocery store cashiers will become the food police
    telling parents what they can and cannot feed their families.
        Restricting SNAP choice will not create meaningful public health
    outcomes. The diet of an individual on SNAP is not significantly
    different than the average American diet. To improve public health,
    nutrition incentives are more effective and can be targeted to high
    need communities. Additionally, most SNAP transactions are split
    tender, meaning they are partially paid for out of pocket. Foods not
    allowed on the program will just be moved to out-of-pocket purchases
    and not change an individual's purchasing habits.
        The current flexibility is key to the program's success. The
    dietary needs of the SNAP population are diverse and no one diet would
    be appropriate for all participants leading to the need for different
    meal plans and nutrition counseling for each participating in turn
    increasing the cost of the program. SNAP choice allows the program to
    remain flexible during a supply chain shortage and declared
    emergencies. Restrictions would limit the program's ability to react to
    the changing needs of the community.
        Additionally, NGA strongly opposes the collection of retailer-
    specific basket-level purchasing data. Collection of such data would
    impose a significant burden on small businesses with no benefit to the
    government. USDA has already collected troves of data from third-party
    data collecting agencies on the purchasing habits of SNAP customers
    without having to surveil SNAP customers and requiring retailers to
    turn over highly sensitive and proprietary transaction information.
        Massive data collections from the Federal Government would require
    additional staffing and expertise that many small businesses do not
    have. Many small businesses, especially those with small margins like
    grocery stores, do not have the capacity to bring on additional
    compliance staff with each new regulation.
        Broad data collection is not necessary to ensure that the program
    is running effectively and efficiently. USDA already receives bulk
    redemption data that assists the agency to pinpoint anomalies and
    investigate fraud.
        Restrictions will harm participants, taxpayers, and small community
    businesses. For these reasons, NGA urges you to oppose any efforts to
    restrict purchases and limit choices of SNAP recipients. Thank you for
    your attention to these important matters.
                Sincerely,

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Stephanie Johnson, RDN,
    Vice President, Government Relations,
    National Grocers Association.
                                     ______

    Supplementary Material Submitted by Patrick J. Stover, Ph.D., Director,

         Institute for Advancing Health Through Agriculture, Texas A&M
                                   University
    Insert
              Mr. LaMalfa. So, in all the existence of the SNAP Program, we
            don't really have data that has been gathered yet that the
            increased dollar amount per user of the program would lead to
            healthier food choices in their diet?
              Dr. Stover. Some of those data are available, and we can make
            those available to you, but I don't have those in my
            fingertips.

        As discussed in detail in my response to Congressman Bost, (see
    Response to Mr. Bost's Question for the Record on p. 251.) there are no
    systematic evaluation metrics employed in SNAP that would include
    lowering rates of diet-related chronic disease and related health care
    costs. The IHA is currently conducting a systematic review of the
    literature that is focused on health-related outcomes among SNAP-
    eligible participants, and we anticipate a completion date in 2024.
                                     ______

       Supplementary Material Submitted by Dawn Royal, Member, Board of
         Directors and past President, United Council on Welfare Fraud
    June 15, 2023

      Hon. Glenn Thompson,
      Chairman,
      House Committee on Agriculture,
      Washington, D.C.;

      Hon. David Scott,
      Ranking Minority Member,
      House Committee on Agriculture,
      Washington, D.C.

        Dear Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member Scott,

        On behalf of the United Council on Welfare Fraud, thank you for the
    opportunity to provide testimony and address issues impacting the
    Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). I would like to offer
    several points of [clarification] for the record following the June 7,
    2023, hearing, ``Innovation, Employment, Integrity, and Health:
    Opportunities for Modernization in Title IV.''
        I was asked several questions about error and fraud rates. As I
    testified, this contentious issue is problematic to answer as the two
    issues are often co-mingled. The SNAP payment error rate is a
    performance measure for accountability at state and county SNAP offices
    and is impacted by SNAP eligibility workers and policy waivers and
    options in place.\1\ *
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ USDA Office of Inspector General: FNS Quality Control Process
    for SNAP Error Rate. 2023 rates are expected to be released by end of
    June. https://www.oversight.gov/sites/default/files/oig-reports/27601-
    0002-41.pdf.
        * Editor's note: references annotated with  are retained in
    Committee file..
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Fraud rates, conversely, include overpayments but are impacted by
    the lack of fraud detection staff as discussed in my written testimony.
    They can also vary from state to state and county to county depending
    on many factors. Fraud is a moving target, and government agencies are
    always playing catchup, which is why we encourage moving from ``pay and
    chase'' to front-end fraud prevention.
        A research study was ordered by the Florida state legislature and
    released on November 28, 2012. It established a 7.5% SNAP fraud rate,
    which is in line with my testimony.\2\ It should be noted that this
    fraud rate only pertained to provable recipient eligibility fraud and
    did not address fraud attempts, trafficking, or identity theft (to
    include account takeover.) A copy of this report is attached. Concerns
    with the 40% rate reported by the Pennsylvania Inspector General should
    be directed to that agency, but this also aligns with UCOWF member
    experiences.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ ``Statistical Analysis of Fraud in the Florida Food Assistance
    Program,'' ERS Group, November 28, 2012.
        \3\ https://www.bradfordera.com/news/key-pa-budget-negotiator-
    hopes-for-welfare-fraud-compromise/article_560351bf-6e3e-5beb-8177-
    18282b864774.html.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        I would also like to clarify questions about the Name/Address/
    Signature and Social Security Number discussions. According to 7 CFR
    273.2(b)(1)(v): [Emphasis added]

              ``In plain and prominent language on or near the front page
            of the application, notification of the household's right to
            immediately file the application as long as it contains the
            applicant's name and address and the signature of a responsible
            household member or the household's authorized representative.
            Regardless of the type of system the state agency uses (paper
            or electronic), it must provide a means for households to
            immediately begin the application process with name, address,
            and signature;'' \4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-7/subtitle-B/chapter-II/
    subchapter-C/part-273#p-273.2(b)(1)(v).

        Should a household apply for Expedited Benefits, all that is
    required under current regulations is the name, address, and signature.
    While well intentioned to provide maximum benefits immediately to
    applicants in need, this loophole is exploited by identity thieves. A
    savvy fraudster applying after the 15th of the month would receive 1\1/
    2\ months SNAP benefits--up to $421.50 for a single household.\5\ After
    the expedited benefit time has expired, the recipient must provide the
    remaining eligibility information to continue receiving SNAP. Per FNS,
    ``The significant aspect of expedited service is the postponing of
    verification when it is necessary to issue an allotment by the 7 day
    deadline.'' \6\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/recipient/eligibility.
        \6\ USDA FNS Memo dated February 17, 2006. https://
    www.fns.usda.gov/snap/admin/expedited-service-and-interviews.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Modernization of regulations to require all mandatory identity
    components is a common-sense reform both sides of the aisle should
    agree to--it protects the program from waste, fraud, and abuse. The
    current ``EBT skimming'' epidemic impacting vulnerable recipients is a
    great example that can be fixed with program modernization.
        Again, thank you for the opportunity to discuss these critical
    maters impacting SNAP program integrity. We remain at your disposal and
    available for additional opportunities to discuss fraud and integrity
    with all Committee and Subcommittee Members.
                Respectfully submitted,
    Dawn Royal,
    Director and Past-President,
    United Council on Welfare Fraud (UCOWF).
                                   attachment
    Statistical Analysis of Fraud in the Florida Food Assistance Program
    Prepared for The Florida Strike Force on Medicaid & Public Assistance
    Fraud

    Prepared by: Charles J. Mullin, Ph.D., ERS Group, Tallahassee, FL

    November 28, 2012

        ERS Group was requested by The Florida Strike Force on Medicaid &
    Public Assistance Fraud (the Strike Force) to (1) review information on
    metrics and methodologies used to measure fraud, waste, and abuse in
    government food and nutrition or other public assistance programs, and
    (2) to design and implement a methodology to provide the Strike Force
    with an estimate of the amount of fraud, waste and abuse leading to
    overpayments in the Florida Food Assistance Program, also known as the
    Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). In the interest of
    brevity, throughout this report we often refer to ``fraud, waste and
    abuse'' simply as ``fraud.'' ERS Group staff worked closely with Strike
    Force staff, the Department of Children and Families (DCF), and the
    Department of Financial Services' Division of Public Assistance Fraud
    (DPAF). ERS Group would like to thank the Strike Force members for the
    opportunity to contribute to their efforts to reduce fraud in the State
    of Florida, and to thank the numerous individuals within these agencies
    for their cooperation and assistance, without whom this project could
    not have been completed.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ ERS Group would like to thank Jeri Flora, Yameche Madry and
    Peter Bull of DCF's Economic Self Sufficiency Division; Amanda Huston,
    Director of the Office of Public Benefits Integrity; Randy Burkhalter,
    Director of Florida's Division of Public Assistance Fraud; and Chuck
    Faircloth, Executive Director of the Strike Force. Special thanks are
    due to Strike Force staff member Cynthia Godbey, Department of Children
    and Families ACCESS Integrity Chief Fred Young, and Florida Department
    of Financial Services' Financial Crimes Investigator Kim Harrison.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Executive Summary
       The estimate of fraud incidence in the Florida SNAP program
            is 7.5 percent. For the purpose of this estimate, fraud
            includes any potential overpayment of benefits due to a
            misrepresentation of information, regardless of size.
            Therefore, this estimate indicates that 7.5 percent of the
            discrete payments were potentially larger than justified under
            the program rules.

       In addition to calculating a rate of fraud incidence, we
            employed two methodologies to estimate the overall overpayment
            rate in dollar terms. One method, based on the benefit payments
            received by those in our sample who committed fraud, yields an
            estimated dollar overpayment rate of approximately 2.75
            percent.

       The second method, based on historical fraud overpayment
            calculations provided by DPAF, yields an estimated dollar
            overpayment rate of approximately 3.7 percent.

       These estimates do not include vendor trafficking (purchase
            of SNAP electronic benefit transfer (EBT) cards by vendors at a
            fraction of their value), which cannot be detected by the
            methodologies employed in this study. A recent U.S. Department
            of Agriculture (USDA) report estimates the dollar cost of SNAP
            vendor trafficking at one percent.

       Fraud was detected by four of the nine distinct fraud
            detection methodologies that were employed by investigators
            during the study. The most effective methods of detection were
            income verification, site visits, and desk reviews.

       Over 70 percent of the fraud that was detected in our sample
            was related to non-reporting or under-reporting of income.
            Florida's SNAP system would benefit from routine computer
            comparisons of recipient income (as reported on applications)
            vs. earned income as reported to the Department of Economic
            Opportunity, along with follow-up on identified discrepancies.
            Similarly, routine verification of household composition
            through available data may help to prevent fraud.

       Logistic regression analysis of the sample revealed one
            statistically significant difference in the characteristics of
            those who committed fraud and those who did not: As the number
            of adults in the household increased, the likelihood of fraud
            increased, after controlling for other factors.

       Current policy requires SNAP recipients to report changes in
            income (and other living conditions) every 6 months (or every
            year in certain cases). The USDA's Food and Nutrition Service
            (FNS) allows states several choices with regards to how often
            recipients are required to report changes. We recommend DCF
            review the current 6 month change reporting policy to determine
            if a shorter time threshold is in the best interest of the
            State of Florida.

       Per the SNAP State Activity Report for FY 2010, 87 percent
            of pre-certification fraud investigations in Florida result in
            a positive finding, while only 12 percent of post-certification
            investigations result in a positive finding. However, only 32
            percent of investigations are done on a pre-certification
            basis. Florida would benefit from moving further away from a
            post-certification, ``pay-and-chase'' system and towards a more
            rigorous pre-payment fraud detection system.
    I  Background
        The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program is implemented by the
    Food and Nutrition Service, a division of the United States Department
    of Agriculture. SNAP provided nearly $65 billion in benefits to
    American families in fiscal year 2010, and as of September, 2011
    provided assistance to 46 million people per month.2, 3
    While the program's funds are provided by the Federal Government, the
    program is administered by each state. Within the State of Florida, the
    program is administered by DCF. In Fiscal Year 2010, Florida's share of
    SNAP funds totaled over $4.4 billion, the fourth highest amount in the
    nation.\4\ It is worth noting that Florida's SNAP issuance increased
    from almost $1.8 billion in 2008 to $4.4 billion in 2010, a growth rate
    of almost 150 percent, the second highest in the nation (only Idaho had
    a higher growth rate).\5\ With sums of this magnitude, even a
    relatively low rate of fraud can represent significant monetary loss.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ SNAP Quality Control Annual Report, September 2011, page i.
        \3\ State Fraud Detection Efforts for the Supplemental Nutrition
    Assistance Program, Audit Report 27703-0002-HY, January 2012, page 4.
        \4\ SNAP Quality Control Annual Report, September 2011, page 11.
        \5\ Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) State Activity
    Report: Federal Fiscal Year 2010. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food
    and Nutrition Service, Program Accountability and Administration
    Division, December 2011, page 55.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In consultation with Strike Force staff, we first endeavored to
    define the phrase ``fraud, waste and abuse''. While similarities in
    definitions exist across Federal and state entities, it does not appear
    that any two units of government use exactly the same definition. For
    example, the Texas health care claims studies described later in this
    report, which were pilot studies for the Federal Payment Error Rate
    Measurement Program (PERM) used for Medicare and Medicaid, define fraud
    as ``. . . an intentional deception or misrepresentation made by a
    person with the knowledge that the deception could result in some
    unauthorized benefit.'' The studies defined abuse as ``. . . provider
    practices that are inconsistent with sound fiscal, business or medical
    practices and result in an unnecessary cost to the Medicaid program.''
    \6\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ Texas Health Care Claims Study, January 2001, Section II, page
    15. Texas Health Care Claims Study, March 2003, Section I, page 16.
    Texas Health Care Claims Study, March 2005, Section I, page 17.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In contrast, the current definition of fraud on the Federal
    Government's FNS website is as follows:

       ``SNAP fraud is when SNAP benefits are exchanged for cash.
            This is called trafficking and it is against the law.

       SNAP fraud also happens when someone lies on their
            application to get benefits or to get more benefits than they
            are supposed to get.

       SNAP fraud also happens when a retailer has been
            disqualified from the program for past abuse and lies on the
            application to get in the program again.'' \7\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/fraud/fraud_2.htm.

    The above is roughly consistent with the FNS's December, 2011 statement
    on the USDA's efforts to reduce waste, fraud and abuse. That document
    suggests a definition that includes elements related to providing false
    information connected to eligibility and benefits, trafficking, and
    reducing improper payments and errors.\8\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ USDA Efforts to Reduce, Waste, Fraud and Abuse in the
    Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), December 2011, http:/
    /www.fns.usda.gov/cga/FactSheets/Integrity.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Lastly, The Florida Department of Children and Families indicates
    that ``fraud means to commit an intentional violation of law or a
    deliberate misrepresentation or concealment so as to secure unfair or
    unlawful financial or personal gain''.\9\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ See for example, Cf Operating Procedure No. 180-4, Florida
    Department of Children and Families, December 13, 2011.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        We have chosen throughout this report to focus first and foremost
    on fraud. Within the SNAP universe and Florida DCF, this encompasses
    primarily at least one of two elements. The first is trafficking, or
    the exchange of benefits for cash. While direct investigation of vendor
    trafficking was outside the scope of this report, we did research this
    issue and have provided information related to estimates of vendor
    trafficking. The second element is an intentional or unintentional
    material misrepresentation provided by a SNAP applicant (or re-
    applicant) that could result in the receipt of unauthorized benefits.
    While other criteria, such as agency error or a misapplication of
    rules, could also result in a finding of fraud, waste or abuse, for the
    purposes of this report we have defined fraud in terms of such material
    misrepresentation. It is important to note that we did not attempt to
    differentiate between the distinct terms (fraud, waste, abuse) but
    rather treated them as a single phrase which encompasses the full range
    of activity associated with the receipt of improper benefit amounts due
    to material misrepresentation of information. Identifying fraud, waste
    and abuse as separate and distinct items would require a measurement of
    intent, which was beyond the scope of these investigations.
        Fraud is an ongoing and pervasive problem within the SNAP program,
    both nationwide and within Florida. Of the nearly 800,000 fraud
    investigations conducted nationwide during (Federal) Fiscal Year 2010,
    the State of Florida conducted over 51,000, approximately 16,000 of
    which were pre-certification investigations and 35,000 of which were
    post-certification investigations. Of those 51,000 investigations,
    18,000 resulted in a positive determination of fraud (a 35 percent rate
    compared to the national average of 27 percent). Of those,
    approximately 4,100 were post-certification instances involving
    approximately $5.7 million in disbursements.\10\ The investigations
    resulted in 291 prosecutions which led to 283 convictions and eight
    acquittals.\11\ These 283 convictions involved over $900,000 of
    fraudulent activity.\12\ The State of Florida also conducted 2,856
    administrative disqualification hearings resulting in 2,811 waivers or
    convictions and only 45 acquittals. These administrative
    disqualifications involved approximately $1.8 million of fraudulent
    activity.\13\ In Fiscal Year 2010, Florida collected nearly $2.4
    million in fraudulent SNAP claims, about 54 percent of which was
    collected through recoupment from ongoing recipients.\14\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) State
    Activity Report: Federal Fiscal Year 2010. U.S. Department of
    Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Program Accountability and
    Administration Division, December 2011, page 25.
        \11\ Ibid., page 27.
        \12\ Ibid., page 27-28.
        \13\ Ibid., pages 29-30.
        \14\ Ibid., pages 42-43.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    II  Review of Literature and Previous Government Fraud Measures
    Academic Studies
        We reviewed a variety of academic literature to obtain an
    understanding of how economists and statisticians (or experts in other
    fields) have previously conducted studies to measure fraud rates. There
    exists very limited academic literature addressing the actual rates of
    fraud in programs such as SNAP. There is however a considerable body of
    literature on the current methodologies used to detect such fraud. Not
    unexpectedly, most academic efforts in this arena are designed to
    determine the factors (demographic characteristics, education, income,
    etc.) that are correlated with fraud, rather than to directly measure
    incidence.
        One such methodology is regression analysis. Regression is a
    mathematical technique used to estimate the statistical relationship
    between a dependent variable and a set of explanatory variables. This
    estimate can then be used to predict the dependant, or outcome
    variable, given the values of the explanatory variables. Regression
    models for fraud detection are most commonly discussed in the
    literature concerning automobile insurance fraud. In contrast, efforts
    to detect credit card fraud and fraud in health care have favored a
    variety of machine learning methods. Machine learning involves the use
    of computer algorithms that improve automatically through experience.
    Applications of machine learning range from data-mining programs that
    discern general rules in large data sets, to information filtering
    systems that automatically learn users' interests.\15\ Machine learning
    in the context of fraud takes primarily two forms. One methodology
    involves having the computer learn to identify potential fraud using a
    training data set where instances of fraud are first identified by
    human subject matter experts. The second involves the use of computers
    that learn to identify suspicious transactions based on a more general
    set of rules and/or identification of anomalous values in selected data
    fields. These methods are worthwhile and certainly aid in the detection
    of fraud; however, as noted, they do not actually measure the rate of
    fraud, but rather identify transactions that are more likely to be
    fraudulent.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \15\ Mitchell, Tom, Machine Learning, McGraw Hill, 1997.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Government Studies
        In addition to researching the academic literature, we reviewed a
    number of government studies, both state and Federal, that do measure
    fraud rates. In August 1998, the State of Illinois completed what was
    then believed to be ``the first ever payment accuracy review of any
    state Medical Assistance Program.'' \16\ For purposes of the review,
    state investigators selected a random sample of 599 records of payment
    for medical services, stratified by category (physician and pharmacy
    services, inpatient hospital and hospice services, and all other types
    of services). Investigators found 96 instances in which payments had
    been made in error. The study did not estimate a fraud rate, nor,
    according to the authors, was it intended to do so. The authors state
    however that 54.7 percent of the inaccurate payments were the result of
    ``questionable'' errors, meaning ``the provider's intention to bill
    correctly is very doubtful, but no intent was proven.'' \17\ Twenty-
    nine of the payments were judged to be so serious that they were
    referred for additional reviews.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \16\ ``Payment Accuracy Review of the Illinois Medical Assistance
    Program: A Blueprint for Continued Improvement''. Illinois Department
    of Public Aid, August 1998, page 3.
        \17\ Ibid., page 4.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In 2001, 2003 and 2005, the State of Texas conducted studies of
    potential overpayments in the state Medicaid program using random
    samples of patients and associated payments.\18\ In each case where
    such a determination was made, a relatively small portion of the
    overpayment errors were found to represent fraud or ``abuse''. The 2001
    Texas Health Care Claims Study, for example, presented results of an
    examination of a sample of 1,609 Medicaid Fee-for-Service (FFS) Claims.
    Investigators found 269 potential overpayment errors, including 14 that
    were classified as representing potential fraud or abuse.\19\ The 2003
    Texas Health Care Claims Report was expanded to encompass a separate
    study of potential overpayments in the Medicaid Vendor Drug Program
    (VDP). The amount of fraud in the Medicaid VDP is not addressed in the
    2003 report; however, the authors of the report found 29 instances of
    potential overpayments due to fraud or abuse in the Medicaid FFS sample
    of 2,122 paid claims.\20\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \18\ They also examined the extent of overpayment in the state
    employees' workers' compensation program.
        \19\ Texas Health Care Claims Study, January 2001, Section II,
    pages 29-30.
        \20\ Texas Health Care Claims Study, March 2003, page 2, Section I,
    page 31.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The 2005 Texas Health Care Claims Report included a Medicaid FFS
    study based on a review of 2,202 medical services' payments.\21\ The
    review indicated that 28 (about seven percent) of 387 potential
    overpayment errors represented potential ``fraud or abuse''.\22\ For
    purposes of the Medicaid VDP study a sample of 4,036 prescriptions were
    randomly selected for audit. After review, 916 were found to have
    potential overpayment errors.\23\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \21\ Texas Health Care Claims Study, March 2005, page, 2, Section
    I, page 25.
        \22\ Ibid.
        \23\ Ibid., section II, page 79.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Texas state studies discussed above were pilots for the Federal
    Payment Error Rate Measurement Program (PERM). The pilot programs were
    overseen by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and covered
    the period from 2002-2005. The PERM program was designed to measure
    payment error rates in Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance
    Program (CHIP) in response to the requirements of the (Federal)
    Improper Payments Information Act of 2002 (IPIA).24, 25 The
    IPIA required Federal agencies overseeing programs susceptible to
    ``significant'' erroneous payments (as defined by the Office of
    Management and Budget (OMB)) to estimate the amount of improper
    payments each year and to report on measures taken to reduce them.\26\
    An overpayment is defined as a payment for a service that is not in
    accordance with the policies of the Medicaid program, and may include
    fraud and abuse.\27\ Under the plan, 17 states (including DC as a
    state) are reviewed each year, so that all are reviewed on a rotating
    basis every 3 years.\28\ The first wave of states was reviewed in
    fiscal year 2006.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \24\ The IPIA was subsequently amended by the Improper Payments
    Elimination and Recovery Act (IPERA) of 2010.
        \25\ Payment Error Rate Measurement Manual, Centers for Medicare
    and Medicaid Services, 2010.
        \26\ Ibid.
        \27\ Texas Health Care Claims Study, March 2005, page I-17.
        \28\ Payment Error Rate Measurement Manual, Centers for Medicare
    and Medicaid Services, 2010, page 12.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Each fiscal quarter the states provide to a statistical contractor
    the universe of claims data for Medicaid, CHIP FFS and managed care
    that were paid by the Federal Government.\29\ The statistical
    contractor then draws random samples from the claims. After receiving
    supporting data for the samples from the states, the statistical
    contractor forwards the data to a review contractor who sends records
    requests to medical service providers represented in the sample.\30\
    The review contractor employs medical personnel who review the medical
    records for accuracy and consistency with the claims submitted to the
    states. The statistical contractor then calculates state specific error
    rates and a national error rate for FFS transactions and managed care.
    These rates are calculated overall, as well as by program and by type
    of error.\31\ The estimated overall Medicaid error rate for the nation
    for fiscal year 2008 was 8.71 percent. The estimated overall Medicaid
    error rate for Florida for fiscal year 2008 was 14.63 percent.\32\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \29\ Payment Error Rate Measurement Manual, Centers for Medicare
    and Medicaid Services, 2010, page 10-12.
        \30\ Ibid.
        \31\ Ibid.
        \32\ Fiscal year 2008 PERM Medicaid Corrective Action Plan,
    Executive Summary, page 1.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    III  Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP)
        Similarly to Medicaid, SNAP, formerly known as the food stamp
    program,\33\ was also identified by the OMB as a ``high error
    program''.\34\ The USDA first reported on improper payments in the SNAP
    program in the 2004 Performance and Accountability Report (PAR), which
    covered outlays for fiscal year 2003.\35\ The most recent (2011) PAR
    covered improper payments in fiscal year 2010. The improper payment
    error rate for the U.S. was 3.8 percent in fiscal year 2010 (consisting
    of an overpayment error rate of 3.05 percent and an underpayment error
    rate of 0.75 percent).\36\ For the State of Florida the reported SNAP
    improper payment rate was 0.72 percent for fiscal year 2010 (consisting
    of a 0.68 percent overpayment rate and a 0.04 percent underpayment
    rate).\37\ The process of calculating the improper payment rate for
    SNAP is described below.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \33\ Analysis of Florida's Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
    Program (SNAP) Eligibility Data, Audit Report 27002-0002-13, November
    2011, page 1.
        \34\ Improper Payments: Recent Efforts to Address Improper Payments
    and Remaining Challenges, GAO-11-575T, April 15, 2011. Footnote 14,
    page 8.
        \35\ 2011 Performance and Accountability Report, U. S. Department
    of Agriculture, page 27.
        \36\ Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program Quality Control
    Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010, page 4.
        \37\ Ibid., page 5.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Each month, states select a statistically random sample of cases
    from a universe of all households receiving SNAP benefits that month
    and perform a quality control review to measure the accuracy of
    eligibility and benefit determinations for each sampled case against
    SNAP standards. State agencies are required to report to FNS the
    findings for each case selected for review. FNS then sub-samples the
    completed state quality control reviews and re-reviews selected
    individual case findings for accuracy. Based on this sub-sample, FNS
    determines each state agency's official error rate using a regression
    formula. The national payment error rate is computed by averaging the
    error rate of the active cases for each state weighted by the amount of
    issuance in the state.\38\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \38\ 2011 Performance and Accountability Report, U. S. Department
    of Agriculture, pp. 218-219.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        According to the FNS document which provides the guidelines for the
    quality control audit process, the quality control review should
    consist of ``a face-to-face interview for active cases subject to
    review to determine the identity of the applicant and whether the
    household did exist and to explore household circumstances affecting
    the sample month's eligibility and allotment''.\39\ The FNS guidelines
    also require income verification.\40\ These are just two of several
    ways in which the quality control audit process is similar to our
    methodology. However, there are several exceptions to the process which
    differentiate the quality control audit process from our methodology
    and may be the source of the contrast in our results, which are
    detailed later in this report.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \39\ SNAP Quality Control Review Handbook (FNS Handbook 310), U.S.
    Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Services, October, 2011,
    section 420--Household Interview.
        \40\ FNS Handbook 310, section 1021--Wages and Salaries.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        First, there are several case types that are not to be included in
    the quality control sample per the FNS guidelines.\41\ Examples include
    but are not limited to:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \41\ FNS Handbook 310, sections 330-338, section 442.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Cases pending a hearing appealing an adverse action,

       Cases already referred for investigation,

       Cases under active investigation or pending an intentional
            program violation hearing,

       Cases where household members have moved out of state,

       Cases in which the household members could not be
            interviewed after all reasonable efforts to do so have been
            made and documented.

        In several instances, these types of cases are ones in which there
    is a heightened likelihood of fraudulent activity. Since these cases
    are not subject to review and are removed from the FNS sampling
    process, it may serve to reduce the subsequent error estimate. Second,
    the quality control process is designed to determine allotment errors,
    not to detect fraud per se. Accordingly, although incorrect
    applications of policy, or deviations between the information that was
    used and what should have been used to determine eligibility/allotment,
    may exist, they do not result in a finding unless they result in an
    allotment error. Lastly, the allotment error must reach a specific
    monetary threshold before it is included as an error ($25 per the FNS
    handbook; $50 according to quality control personnel at DCF). There may
    be a significant number of instances where the threshold requirement
    could reduce the overall error rate reported through the quality
    control process.
        The USDA Office of Inspector General (OIG) also conducts audits of
    the SNAP eligibility data for selected states. The most recent OIG
    audit report of SNAP in Florida found that 2,689 of the 2.6 million
    average monthly recipients, or 0.1 percent, either (1) were deceased,
    (2) had invalid Social Security Numbers (SSNs), (3) were receiving
    duplicate benefits in Florida and in one or more nearby states, or (4)
    were listed in the Electronic Disqualified Recipient System (eDRS) and
    had therefore been disqualified from receiving benefits because of
    intentional program violations.\42\ Similar audits of Alabama and
    Louisiana found that 0.2 percent and 0.3 percent respectively of the
    recipients were ineligible for benefits for one or more of the four
    reasons above.43, 44
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \42\ Analysis of Florida's Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
    Program (SNAP) Eligibility Data, Audit Report 27002-0002-13, November
    2011, page 1.
        \43\ Analysis of Alabama's Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
    Program (SNAP) Eligibility Data, Audit Report 27002-0004-13, January
    2012, page 1.
        \44\ Analysis of Louisiana's Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
    Program (SNAP) Eligibility Data, Audit Report 27002-0003-13, January
    2012, page 1.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The OIG also reviewed state and FNS SNAP fraud control efforts in
    Colorado, New York, Florida and New Jersey.\45\ A common recommendation
    is that states make better use of Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT)
    Management Reports. Recipients of SNAP assistance receive debit cards
    that can be used to purchase food from approved vendors. The funds are
    transferred from an account monitored by a database manager to the
    vendors. Anomalous transactions could suggest fraud. Using the
    available EBT Management Reports, OIG identified 2,600 questionable
    transactions during a 3 month period in New Jersey and Florida that had
    not previously been found.\46\ The transactions could represent up to
    $181,700 in fraudulent activity.\47\ These included out of state
    transactions that could indicate recipients who are receiving benefits
    in more than one state. They also include cases with unusual numbers of
    whole-dollar transactions at a retail location and instances involving
    excessive refunds by retailers to SNAP recipients. The latter may
    indicate instances in which recipients are trading SNAP benefits for
    cash.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \45\ State Fraud Detection Efforts for the Supplemental Nutrition
    Assistance Program, Audit Report 27703-0002-HY, January 2012, pp. 1-21.
        \46\ State Fraud Detection Efforts for the Supplemental Nutrition
    Assistance Program, Audit Report 27703-0002-HY, January 2012, page 7.
        \47\ Ibid.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Instances in which retailers excessively manually enter the
    benefits card numbers may also represent fraud. Using one of the EBT
    Management Reports, the Manual Transaction Report, the OIG found 122
    retailers in New Jersey who processed more than 400 manual transactions
    each during the review month. They note that these transactions totaled
    over $4.4 million and represented 49 percent of the retailers' total
    SNAP transactions during the month.\48\ The OIG also found 15 retailers
    in Florida whose manual SNAP transactions totaled over $155,000 during
    the month of the review.\49\ Nationwide, the USDA estimates retailer
    fraud in the SNAP program occurs in 8.2 percent of stores and diverts
    ``about 1 of each SNAP dollar''.\50\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \48\ State Fraud Detection Efforts for the Supplemental Nutrition
    Assistance Program, Audit Report 27703-0002-HY, January 2012, page 8-9.
        \49\ Ibid.
        \50\ See the March, 2011 USDA FNS report entitled ``The Extent of
    Trafficking in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP):
    2006-2008''. See http://www.fns.usda.gov/ora/menu/Published/SNAP/FILES/
    ProgramIntegrity/Trafficking2006Summary.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        We also reviewed the ACCESS Florida Food, Medical Assistance and
    Cash program policy manual. The manual, which is available online,
    contains 23 sections and 1,096 pages. The glossary alone is 27 pages.
    While a complete review of the entire manual was neither practical nor
    necessary, we did find one critical area of policy which may lead to
    waste and abuse within the SNAP program. The FNS guidelines provide
    states the freedom to choose SNAP recipient reporting requirements,
    that is, when recipients must report changes to their income, expenses
    or living conditions that determine their benefit levels. Choices
    include time requirements (which include monthly, quarterly or semi-
    annually) and threshold requirements, which require recipients to
    report changes above a certain amount as soon as they occur.\51\ The
    DCF policy manual indicates that Florida SNAP recipients are required
    to report changes semi-annually, with certain categories of recipients
    subject to annual reporting.\52\ So, for example, if a recipient were
    to receive an increase in income such that they were no longer even
    eligible for food stamp assistance, they would not be required to
    report that change for as much as 6 months. Under these rules, a
    recipient could continue to receive benefits for 6 months (or possibly
    a year) and not be in violation of reporting requirements. While there
    is technically no fraud, the potential for waste under these reporting
    requirements is significant. It is our recommendation that DCF and
    other stakeholders review this policy to determine if it is in the best
    interest of the State of Florida.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \51\ FNS Handbook 310, section 223.1-223.6.
        \52\ Access Florida Food, Medical Assistance and Cash Program
    Policy Manual, l., Chapter 0800, section 0810-0200 to 0810-0400. http:/
    /www.dcf.state.fl.us/programs/access/esspolicy
    manual.shtml.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    IV Our Methodology
        While not all of the studies noted above included an analysis of
    random samples, use of sample data sets was a common methodology,
    particularly among the analyses conducted by government entities
    attempting to either investigate fraud or to measure payment error
    rates. Random sampling is a common technique used to measure incidence
    rates of various types in large data sets where examination of all
    observations is simply not economically practicable, as is the case
    here (Florida's SNAP program provided assistance to roughly 2.6 million
    recipients per month in fiscal year 2010).\53\ At ERS Group's request,
    DCF selected a random sample of 545 payments from the universe of all
    payments made during the 3 month period from May, 2011 through July,
    2011. The sample data provided information on the recipient, including
    but not limited to personally identifying information, residence,
    income, expenses and that month's benefit amount. We also received
    information on household composition, including but not limited to
    personally identifying information on all individuals listed as being
    in the household, their relationship to the recipient, their employment
    status as of the last eligibility review, and recorded income
    contributions.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \53\ Analysis of Florida's Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
    Program (SNAP) Eligibility Data, Audit Report 27002-0002-13, November
    2011, page 1.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        This information was then provided to Florida's DPAF, where in
    conjunction with DCF, investigators conducted the following
    investigations to determine whether or not the sampled payments
    involved any fraud, waste or abuse.\54\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \54\ The investigative work was overseen by Randy Burkhalter. Mr.
    Burkhalter is the Director of DPAF and has been investigating fraud for
    the State of Florida in some capacity for over 35 years.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Household Composition/Site Visits
        One of the primary factors in determining benefit eligibility and
    benefit levels is the composition of the household. According to DPAF
    investigators and DCF personnel, one of the common means by which fraud
    occurs is through over-reporting of individuals within the household
    (or conversely, by not reporting a household member who is earning
    income). Verification of household composition and residency is best
    done through site visits. Unfortunately, this is a very time consuming
    element of fraud investigation, and it was prohibitively time consuming
    to perform site visits for all of the recipients in the full sample.
    Accordingly, ERS Group selected a random sub-sample of 100 recipients
    from our sample population of 545 SNAP recipients and DCF personnel
    conducted site visits on the sub-sample. In addition to determining
    which, if any, of the recipients in the sub-sample had a household
    composition that was different than what was reported at the time they
    received benefits, investigators also found program violations of other
    types during these visits. With regard to household composition,
    violations could have consisted of either (1) over-reporting of
    individuals in the household, (2) under-reporting of income earning
    members in the household or (3) residency issues. Any of these
    constitutes fraud, waste or abuse in that such misrepresentation could
    (and likely would) materially affect SNAP benefits.
    Income Verification
        The other primary factor in determining both benefit eligibility
    and benefit amount is household income. DPAF investigators have access
    to a variety of sources for income verification purposes, including the
    Florida Retirement System, Unemployment Compensation Benefits,
    Interstate Unemployment Compensation Benefits, Worker's Compensation
    Benefits, and earned wage information reported to the Department of
    Economic Opportunity (DEO), which receives quarterly information from
    Florida employers documenting income earned within the state (with the
    exception of self-employment income). Each household member's income
    (or absence of income) was compared to information from these various
    sources to determine if there was any un-reported or under-reported
    income. Any discrepancies were followed up and verified independently.
    In the case of verified material differences, these generally resulted
    in a determination that fraud, waste or abuse had occurred.
    Identity Verification
        One of the ways in which fraud can occur within SNAP is if an
    individual's identity has been stolen. Investigators and computer
    programmers at ERS Group, DPAF and DCF compared each recipient's
    identity against a variety of databases to determine that both the
    recipient's identity appeared valid and they were eligible for SNAP
    benefits. The data sources for these comparisons included the U.S.
    Social Security Administration's Master Death File, the Florida Bureau
    of Vital Statistics database and the Stop Inmate Fraud database.
    Instances in which a recipient was identified as ineligible through
    these comparisons and subsequently verified were counted as fraudulent.
    Electronic Disqualified Recipient System
        We also requested that programmers at DCF compare the recipient
    sample against the Electronic Disqualified Recipient System. The eDRS
    is a national internet-based program that tracks and identifies SNAP
    recipients who are found guilty of violations in other states and
    therefore disqualified from receiving benefits. This is often the only
    way in which violators from other states can be identified.
    PARIS Match
        We also requested that DCF conduct a search using the Public
    Assistance Reporting Information System (PARIS) to determine if any of
    the recipients in our sample were receiving SNAP benefits from any
    other states. The PARIS database is an information exchange system
    administered by the U.S. Administration for Children and Families and
    is designed to provide state public assistance agencies with
    appropriate data as a result of a Federal computer matching
    initiative.\55\ This database enables agencies to determine if a
    recipient is receiving funds from multiple states under a variety of
    public assistance programs, including SNAP.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \55\ http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/paris/state.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Address Matches
        In addition to the computer matches to external databases, we also
    requested that DCF determine for each of the recipients in our sample,
    how many SNAP payments are going to the recipient's address. One way in
    which fraud or abuse can manifest itself is if many recipients receive
    SNAP funds at the same address. This may indicate that a recipient is
    using false information. While some multiple recipient locations are
    legitimate (churches, homeless shelters, etc.), many are not. For each
    recipient address, DCF determined the number of payments going to that
    address during the sample month. For those addresses that were
    receiving three or more SNAP payments, DCF personnel conducted follow-
    up investigations to determine if the multiple payments were the result
    of program violations.
    Desk Reviews
        Despite each of the above procedures, it is entirely possible to
    commit fraud or abuse of the SNAP system which is undetectable either
    by computer match or home visit. Accordingly, DPAF investigators also
    conducted what is referred to as a desk review. A desk review consists
    of an overall review of the benefit recipient's case file in an attempt
    to identify irregularities which are undetectable by any of the means
    noted above. For example, an investigator might conduct a comparison of
    expenses to income over time. An investigator might also conduct a
    review of Department of Motor Vehicle records and vehicle registration,
    driving history, insurance information or employment records to
    determine who is living at the address listed.\56\ Investigators also
    review information from the Clerk of Courts, as well as birth records
    and property records. While there is no specific manual or checklist
    that is followed as part of a desk review, investigators report that it
    is an invaluable tool in the investigation of fraud, waste and abuse of
    public assistance programs. DPAF investigators conducted desk reviews
    on all 545 files in our sample and conducted follow-up investigations
    as necessary as part of the overall fraud investigation effort. The
    results of these reviews, as well as all of the aforementioned
    procedures are discussed in detail in the next section.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \56\ Most of this information is available through DAVID, the
    Florida Driver And Vehicle Information Database.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    V  Results
        On the basis of the investigations discussed above, DPAF/DCF
    investigators determined the existence of fraud, waste or abuse in 28
    cases from our random sample of 545. Table 1 below details the
    investigator's findings by fraud type. In several instances, multiple
    types of fraud were detected on a single case, and therefore the total
    incidence of fraud is not equal to the sum by type.

                                     Table 1
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Fraud Type                         Number of Cases
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Household Composition                                     4
                  Residency                                     1
    Non-Reporting of Income                                    21
    Under-Reporting of Income                                   1
    False Reporting of Expenses                                 2
             Identity Theft                                     1
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Several of the investigation methods described above resulted in
    some detection of fraud. However, the PARIS database match, the SSN
    Death Master File match and the match to the eDRS failed to detect any
    fraud within our sample of 545 records. This is not unexpected given
    the results reported in the November 2011 Audit Report of the Florida
    SNAP conducted by the OIG. That report notes finding 883 instances of
    multi-state beneficiaries through PARIS, 807 Death Master File matches
    and 160 previously ineligible recipients through the eDRS database.\57\
    These matches were conducted on over 2.6 million recipients and
    consequently represent a fraud detection rate of 0.07 percent for those
    three methods combined.\58\ Given this low rate of detection, it is not
    surprising that those methods did not detect any fraud within our
    sample.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \57\ Analysis of Florida's Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
    Program (SNAP) Eligibility Data, Audit Report 27002-0002-13, November
    2011, page 5-7.
        \58\ Ibid., page 1.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Table 2 summarizes detected cases of fraud, waste and abuse by
    detection method. As detailed in Table 2, the income matches detected a
    large number of cases of fraud (20). While most of these 20 cases were
    identified through comparisons to the earned wage information reported
    to the DEO, matches to the Florida Retirement System also detected
    fraud. Site visits to verify household composition and residency also
    detected six instances of fraud. Desk reviews led to detection of five
    instances of fraudulent activity, ranging from residency issues, to un-
    reported or under-reported income, to identity theft. It is also worth
    noting that in several cases, fraudulent activity was discovered
    through multiple detection methods, which were implemented
    concurrently.

                                     Table 2
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Detection Method                      Number of Cases
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Site Visit *                                     6
               Desk Reviews                                     5
    Income Verification--Wages                                 19
    Income Verification--Unemployment                           0
    Income Verification--Florida                                1
                  Retirement
            Address Matches                                     0
    Death Master File Match                                     0
                PARIS Match                                     0
                 eDRS Match                                     0
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    * Site visits conducted on sub-sample of 100 only.

        As noted, investigators detected 28 instances of fraud in our
    sample of 545 households.\59\ Three of those cases were found solely
    through the site visits conducted on the sub-sample. The remaining 25
    cases were found in the course of investigations conducted on the
    entire sample of 545.\60\ The overall fraud rate is based on a
    combination of the results from both the original sample and the sub-
    sample. We estimate the overall rate of fraud incidence in the Florida
    SNAP system to be 7.5 percent.\61\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \59\ Information detailing the sample by county can be found in the
    Appendix.
        \60\ Several of the instances of fraud were detected by both the
    site visits and other methodologies.
        \61\ This is calculated using the 25 cases detected in the overall
    sample and the three cases identified in the sub-sample (out of 97
    remaining from the sub-sample that had no fraud detection prior to the
    site visits). The resulting fraud rate calculation is [((3/
    97)*(545^25)) + 25]/545.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In addition to the 28 cases of fraud noted above, we have been
    asked to note that there were an additional six recipients identified
    through the desk review process which DPAF investigators believe have a
    high likelihood of having fraudulently received excess SNAP funds. DPAF
    has opened additional investigations into those cases and the results
    are pending. However, as of the date of this report, investigators have
    not yet categorized those cases as fraudulent. If some or all of those
    cases are eventually revealed to have been fraudulent, we would
    supplement this report at the Strike Force's request to update the
    calculations. If all six cases are found to have involved fraudulent
    activity, the fraud rate estimate would rise from 7.5 percent to 8.6
    percent.
    Sampling Error
        Because our estimate is based on a sample, we cannot expect it to
    be perfectly accurate. The situation is akin to flipping a coin some
    number of times (the sample size) to determine if it is a fair coin.
    Different samples give different estimates, and few of the samples are
    likely to result in exactly 50 percent heads, so each estimate comes
    with a likely error due to sampling. The sampling error is determined
    primarily by the size of the sample. Thus, if we flipped a coin ten
    times and the results were 60% heads, we would not be concerned about
    its fairness because the sample is so small. However, if we flipped a
    coin 1,000 times and the results were 60% heads, we would conclude that
    the coin is not fair because 60% is ``too far away'' from 50% for a
    sample of that size. More precise estimates (that is, ones with smaller
    sampling error and narrower confidence intervals) require larger
    samples. However, they also typically incur greater time and expense in
    performing the estimation.
        When we allow for the likely error from sampling, we estimate that
    the fraud rate for the population of all payments is between 4.2
    percent and 11.7 percent with 95% confidence. The ``95% confidence''
    means that, applying our methods to many different samples of this
    size, the fraud rate would lie within the calculated interval 95% of
    the time.\62\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \62\ Note that the estimated range of the 95 percent confidence
    level is not precisely centered around our estimate of 7.5 percent.
    This is a standard statistical effect that occurs the further away one
    gets from an estimate of 50 percent.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Descriptive Statistics
        We have detailed below a comparison of the characteristics of those
    within the sample who were found to have committed fraud to those who
    did not. Such a comparison may reveal differences between the two
    groups. However, we caution the reader regarding any attempt to use
    applicant characteristics to profile individuals regarding their
    likelihood to commit fraud. The use of averages to draw conclusions
    about specific individuals or groups has any number of unforeseen
    complications. Table 3 below highlights a variety of descriptive
    statistics for the households in our study sample. In each case, we
    show the average or proportion for the households, grouped by those
    whom investigators concluded committed fraud and those they concluded
    did not. We performed commonly used statistical tests (t-tests or Chi-
    square tests) to determine if the averages between the two groups were
    statistically significantly different. Statistically significantly
    differences are those that are large enough that one is not able to
    attribute them to random chance. For most characteristics, the groups
    were not different. Those characteristics that were statistically
    significantly different relate to the size of the household, including
    both the number of children and the number of adults in the household.

                        Table 3. Study Sample Statistics
               Characteristics of SNAP Recipients by Fraud Status
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Study Sample (n = 545)
                                            --------------------------------
                 Characteristic                                No Fraud (n =
                                              Fraud (n = 28)       517)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Household Composition                                 Means
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Number in Household (Reported) *              2.79             1.87
        Number in Household (Computed) *              2.93             2.02
                      Number of Adults *              1.71             1.28
     Number of Children (17 and under) *              1.21             0.74
                   Number of Adult Males              0.82             0.55
    Percent of Households with at least 2             0.50             0.25
                                 Adults *
          Age of Head of Household (HHH)             40.21            44.21
                           Age of Adults             37.70            43.63
                       Age of Children *              9.73             7.11
      Percent of Households where HHH is              0.75             0.63
                                   Female
    Percent of Households where HHH is U.S.           0.82             0.87
                                  Citizen
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Monthly Income & Expenses
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Gross Income           $725.75          $638.82
                                 Shelter           $406.68          $339.29
                   Disposable Income \1\           $319.07          $299.53
                               Utilities           $219.82          $200.69
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    SNAP related
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Percent of Households with Expedited              0.14             0.15
                              Application
    Percent of Households with Simplified             0.75             0.66
                              Eligibility
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    * Statistically significantly different at 5% probability.
    \1\ Defined as (Gross Income^Shelter Expense).

        In order to further determine whether or not these variables appear
    to be statistically significantly related to fraud, we conducted
    additional statistical analyses. Logistic regression analysis is a
    commonly used technique in which one can control for a variety of
    factors to determine whether or not they are correlated with a
    categorical dependent variable, in this case committing fraud or not.
    We ran regressions controlling for characteristics of the head of
    household (age, gender, etc.), the number of minors, number of adults,
    income and expense variables, as well as eligibility characteristics
    (simplified or expedited). In each of our models, the sole variable
    that was statistically significantly correlated with fraud was the
    number of adults present in the household. More precisely, the greater
    the number of adults, the more likely that household was to have
    committed fraud.
    Estimated Overpayment Rate
        It is important to note that the 7.5 percent figure is a rate of
    fraud incidence and not a measure of the proportion of total dollars
    overpaid to fraudulent recipients. In the vast majority of instances,
    the elimination of fraudulent activity would likely result in a lower
    payment for recipients, but not complete ineligibility and elimination
    of all benefits. Only if 100 percent of the dollars associated with
    these incidents are fraudulent, or alternatively, if these incidents
    are for disproportionately larger dollar figures than the average SNAP
    payment, could the overpayment rate in dollar terms be 7.5 percent (or
    more). While we were not able to directly calculate the reduction in
    payments that would occur in the absence of the fraud that was detected
    in our sample, we provide here an estimated overpayment rate in dollars
    using two separate calculation methods.
        The first methodology involves comparing the average monthly
    payment amount received by recipients who were identified as having
    misrepresented information to the average monthly payment amount in the
    entire SNAP universe. It is important to recognize that these 28 cases
    represent a very small sample of recipients and thus the corresponding
    estimate has a potentially large sampling error. It is also important
    to note that we did not compare the characteristics of those who
    committed fraud to the characteristics of all individuals within the
    SNAP universe. Ideally, one would want to determine if these
    individuals would have been entitled to greater benefits, even in the
    absence of fraud, because they possessed more of the characteristics
    that correlate with higher benefits than those in the SNAP universe on
    the whole. If it is the case that the individuals committing fraud are
    different than the average SNAP recipient (aside from the fact they
    have misrepresented information), then the estimate may suffer from
    sample bias. Sample bias can occur when an estimate is based on a
    sample that is not representative. While our sample of recipients used
    to determine the fraud incidence rate was randomly drawn and very
    likely to be representative, it may not be the case that those who
    committed fraud are representative of the average recipient.
    Unfortunately, that determination was beyond the scope of this study.
        The recipients in this study who were identified as having
    committed fraud received an average benefit in the month they were
    sampled of $389.14. The average Florida SNAP recipient received a
    monthly benefit of $247.30 during the months from which our sample was
    drawn. If we assume the difference of $141.84 is due to fraud, we would
    estimate the overpayment rate among those who commit fraud to be 36.4
    percent. In order to estimate the overpayment rate for the SNAP
    program, we multiply the estimated rate of fraud incidence (7.5
    percent) times the estimated rate of overpayment among those who commit
    fraud (36.4 percent). This yields an estimated dollar overpayment rate
    for the SNAP program of approximately 2.75 percent.
        The second methodology involves the use of historical information
    regarding fraud loss that was provided to ERS Group by the Division of
    Public Assistance Fraud. At ERS Group's request, DPAF was able to
    provide average overpayment amounts based on fraud cases within the
    SNAP program during the 3 year period from March, 2009 to March, 2012.
    During that time, DPAF was involved in the investigation of over 6,000
    cases in which fraudulent activity was found. According to DPAF, those
    cases resulted in an average monthly overpayment of $241.88. In
    contrast, as noted above, the average monthly SNAP payment during our
    sample period was $247.30. Under the assumption that those who commit
    fraud are similar to other SNAP recipients in terms of the
    characteristics that define eligibility and benefits (such as income,
    expenses, household composition, etc.), this represents an overpayment
    rate on fraudulent cases of 49.4 percent.\63\ As above, the estimated
    overpayment rate for the SNAP program would be the estimated rate of
    fraud incidence (7.5 percent) multiplied by the historical fraud case
    overpayment rate (49.4 percent). That resulting dollar overpayment
    estimate is 3.7 percent. However, as above, there are concerns
    regarding this second overpayment rate estimation as well. First, as
    noted above, this estimate is dependent upon the assumption that those
    who commit fraud have similar characteristics to those who do not. In
    addition, this estimate is also dependent upon the assumption that the
    fraud cases that have been investigated by DPAF are similar to fraud
    cases on average with regard to the resulting overpayment. In most
    instances, the cases that are discovered, referred to and investigated
    by DPAF and subsequently result in a finding of fraud are likely to be
    biased toward larger overpayment amounts. This is because DCF and DPAF
    are more likely to discover, refer and investigate cases where the
    potential loss due to fraud is higher than the average loss due to
    fraud (discovered and not discovered). Thus, there is some likelihood
    that one or both of these assumptions are violated, either of which
    would lead to bias. Accordingly, it is more likely that the 3.7 percent
    estimate represents an upper bound on the dollar overpayment rate.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \63\ $241.88/($241.88 + $247.30) = 49.4 percent.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        It is also important to note that one type of fraudulent activity,
    trafficking, was not examined by our study. Trafficking of SNAP
    benefits occurs when a vendor (grocery store, mini mart, etc.)
    purchases the monthly SNAP benefit from a recipient for a fraction of
    its worth. The recipient receives cash, which can be spent as he or she
    wishes, while the vendor is reimbursed for the entire amount of monthly
    benefit. This form of fraud is not detectable by any methodology we
    could readily employ. In addition, it is not entirely clear that the
    SNAP benefits paid to these recipients would change based on this type
    of fraud, and so it may not directly impact the overall overpayment
    rate to recipients. However, it is clearly a type of fraud and it is
    therefore noteworthy as part of this effort. A recent study by the USDA
    indicated that approximately 8.2 percent of stores trafficked in this
    manner and estimates SNAP trafficking (in dollar terms) at
    approximately one percent.\64\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \64\ See the March, 2011 USDA FNS report entitled ``The Extent of
    Trafficking in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP):
    2006-2008''. See http://www.fns.usda.gov/ora/menu/Published/SNAP/FILES/
    ProgramIntegrity/Trafficking2006Summary.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    VI  Concluding Remarks
        The Florida Medicaid & Public Assistance Fraud Strike Force
    contracted ERS Group to review information on metrics and methodologies
    used to measure waste, fraud, and abuse in public assistance programs.
    The Strike Force also requested we estimate the amount of fraud, waste
    or abuse leading to overpayments in the Florida Food Assistance
    Program. There are a number of ways in which fraud is examined in
    academic studies and government programs. However, the most useful
    methodology for estimating fraud within Florida's SNAP was to draw a
    random sample of payments and have Florida's professional fraud
    investigators examine those cases for any misrepresentation of
    information, (i.e., fraud). The investigators for DPAF and DCF
    discovered 28 instances of fraud within the randomly drawn sample of
    545 cases. Based on the various investigative methodologies employed on
    the entire sample, as well as the site visits employed on a sub-sample
    of 100 cases, we estimate fraud incidence within SNAP to be 7.5
    percent. There were an additional six cases with pending
    investigations, which could raise that estimate to as much as 8.6
    percent.
        Further, we employed two methodologies to estimate the dollar
    overpayment rate within SNAP, both based in part on the fraud incidence
    rate estimate. First, we compared the average monthly payment amount
    received by recipients who were identified as having committed fraud to
    the average monthly payment amount in the entire SNAP universe.
    Multiplying this average overpayment rate of 36.4 percent by the fraud
    incidence rate of 7.5 percent yields an estimated dollar overpayment
    rate of approximately 2.75 percent.
        The second method utilized historical information, provided by
    DPAF, regarding average monthly overpayment amounts on cases involving
    fraud. Multiplying the average overpayment rate indicated by the DPAF
    data, 49.4 percent, by the fraud incidence rate of 7.5 percent yields
    an estimated dollar overpayment rate of approximately 3.7 percent.
    Additionally, a recent USDA report estimates national vendor
    trafficking in dollar terms at approximately one percent.
        It is critical to recognize that with both of these methodologies,
    the dollar overpayment estimates have the potential to be unreliable
    due to the relatively small number of fraud cases identified in the
    sample (28), or biased by the nature of the information on fraud
    overpayment provided by DPAF. Further study of the 28 identified cases
    and recalculation of their monthly benefit based on additional
    information would provide a more accurate estimate of the dollar
    overpayment rate in Florida's Food Assistance Program.
        The two most common mechanisms by which fraud was perpetrated in
    the sample were through false reporting of income and/or household
    composition. While investigators employed nine different methods of
    fraud detection, the vast majority of the fraud uncovered in the sample
    was related to one of these two reasons. Accordingly, we recommend that
    DCF, the agency tasked with administering the SNAP program, institute
    computer comparison of applicant's (or re-applicant's) reported income
    to that found in other state databases, including Florida wage income
    reported to the Department of Economic Opportunity. We also recommend
    implementation of a system in which household composition and residency
    are more routinely checked. This may include partnering with a vendor
    who can perform these types of checks using publicly available or
    privately held databases.
        We also ran regression analyses to determine if there were any
    characteristics correlated with a higher likelihood of committing
    fraud. While an increased number of adults in the recipient household
    was correlated with an increased likelihood of fraud, we caution
    stakeholders against using this information proactively.
        Further, it is our understanding that households are not required
    to report changes in income (or other characteristics) that have
    occurred within 6 months of application (or re-application). While we
    did not identify any fraud based on that criteria since that is the
    rule under which the system operates, the potential for waste due to
    that rule may be significant. Households with meaningful changes in
    financial or other circumstances can receive what could be termed
    excess benefits for as much as 6 months. Accordingly, we recommend a
    review of this policy to determine if it is in the best interest of the
    State of Florida.
        Lastly, Florida, like many states, operates primarily in the fraud
    arena under what is commonly referred to a ``pay-and-chase'' system.
    Many investigations, though not all, are conducted post-eligibility and
    after benefits have already been received. Recovering these benefits
    after they have already been paid is difficult and typically results in
    a small proportion being recouped. We recommend Florida consider a more
    rigorous pre-certification system, perhaps partnering with vendors who
    can provide machine learning software designed specifically to detect
    this type of fraudulent activity.

                                                        Appendix
                                                    Results by County
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Households (2010 Census)  SNAP Households (October    Study Sample (Total)      Study Sample (Fraud)
             --------------------------           2011)          ---------------------------------------------------
     County                            --------------------------
                 Number      Percent                   Percent       Number      Percent       Number      Percent
                              Share        Number       Share                     Share                     Share
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Alachua       100,516        1.35%       20,413        1.14%           13        2.39%           --           --
    Baker           8,772        0.12%        2,384        0.13%           --           --           --           --
    Bay            68,438        0.92%       16,964        0.95%            4        0.73%            1        3.57%
    Bradford        9,479        0.13%        2,807        0.16%            1        0.18%           --           --
    Brevard       229,692        3.10%       41,171        2.31%            7        1.28%           --           --
    Broward       686,047        9.24%      142,139        7.97%           55       10.09%            4       14.29%
    Calhoun         5,061        0.07%        1,373        0.08%           --           --           --           --
    Charlott       73,370        0.99%       11,248        0.63%            3        0.55%           --           --
     e
    Citrus         63,304        0.85%       12,729        0.71%            4        0.73%           --           --
    Clay           68,792        0.93%       10,895        0.61%            5        0.92%           --           --
    Collier       133,179        1.79%       19,911        1.12%            8        1.47%           --           --
    Columbia       24,941        0.34%        7,543        0.42%            1        0.18%           --           --
    DeSoto         11,445        0.15%        3,665        0.21%            2        0.37%           --           --
    Dixie           6,316        0.09%        2,146        0.12%            1        0.18%           --           --
    Duval         342,450        4.61%       91,938        5.16%           40        7.34%           --           --
    Escambia      116,238        1.57%       30,803        1.73%            8        1.47%            2        7.14%
    Flagler        39,186        0.53%        6,589        0.37%            1        0.18%           --           --
    Franklin        4,254        0.06%          960        0.05%           --           --           --           --
    Gadsden        16,952        0.23%        7,134        0.40%            5        0.92%            1        3.57%
    Gilchris        6,121        0.08%        1,590        0.09%           --           --           --           --
     t
    Glades          4,533        0.06%          655        0.04%           --           --           --           --
    Gulf            5,335        0.07%        1,309        0.07%           --           --           --           --
    Hamilton        4,617        0.06%        1,875        0.11%            1        0.18%           --           --
    Hardee          8,245        0.11%        2,971        0.17%            1        0.18%           --           --
    Hendry         12,025        0.16%        5,125        0.29%            2        0.37%            1        3.57%
    Hernando       71,745        0.97%       15,913        0.89%            4        0.73%           --           --
    Highland       42,604        0.57%        9,112        0.51%            2        0.37%           --           --
     s
    Hillsbor      474,030        6.39%      134,121        7.52%           48        8.81%            4       14.29%
     ough
    Holmes          7,354        0.10%        2,412        0.14%            1        0.18%           --           --
    Indian         60,176        0.81%       10,747        0.60%            2        0.37%           --           --
     River
    Jackson        17,417        0.23%        4,578        0.26%           --           --           --           --
    Jefferso        5,646        0.08%        1,453        0.08%           --           --           --           --
     n
    Lafayett        2,580        0.03%          481        0.03%           --           --           --           --
     e
    Lake          121,289        1.63%       23,721        1.33%            7        1.28%           --           --
    Lee           259,818        3.50%       51,963        2.91%           17        3.12%            1        3.57%
    Leon          110,945        1.50%       20,447        1.15%            7        1.28%           --           --
    Levy           16,404        0.22%        4,359        0.24%            1        0.18%           --           --
    Liberty         2,525        0.03%          687        0.04%           --           --           --           --
    Madison         6,985        0.09%        2,308        0.13%            1        0.18%           --           --
    Manatee       135,729        1.83%       26,774        1.50%            8        1.47%           --           --
    Marion        137,726        1.86%       34,389        1.93%           13        2.39%           --           --
    Martin         63,899        0.86%        8,338        0.47%            2        0.37%            1        3.57%
    Miami-        867,352       11.69%      362,450       20.33%           94       17.25%            8       28.57%
     Dade
    Monroe         32,629        0.44%        5,435        0.30%           --           --           --           --
    Nassau         28,794        0.39%        4,866        0.27%            1        0.18%           --           --
    Okaloosa       72,379        0.98%       10,351        0.58%            5        0.92%           --           --
    Okeechob       14,013        0.19%        4,663        0.26%            1        0.18%           --           --
     ee
    Orange        421,847        5.68%      108,594        6.09%           25        4.59%           --           --
    Osceola        90,603        1.22%       33,380        1.87%           14        2.57%           --           --
    Palm          544,227        7.33%       93,010        5.22%           22        4.04%            1        3.57%
     Beach
    Pasco         189,612        2.56%       40,368        2.26%           13        2.39%           --           --
    Pinellas      415,876        5.60%       85,889        4.82%           20        3.67%            1        3.57%
    Polk          227,485        3.07%       62,197        3.49%           18        3.30%            2        7.14%
    Putnam         29,409        0.40%       11,135        0.62%            7        1.28%           --           --
    St.            75,338        1.02%        8,224        0.46%            2        0.37%            1        3.57%
     Johns
    St.           108,523        1.46%       26,189        1.47%           11        2.02%           --           --
     Lucie
    Santa          56,910        0.77%        8,081        0.45%            1        0.18%           --           --
     Rosa
    Sarasota      175,746        2.37%       26,678        1.50%            9        1.65%           --           --
    Seminole      164,706        2.22%       23,976        1.34%            6        1.10%           --           --
    Sumter         41,361        0.56%        5,017        0.28%           --           --           --           --
    Suwannee       15,953        0.21%        4,589        0.26%           --           --           --           --
    Taylor          7,920        0.11%        2,277        0.13%            1        0.18%           --           --
    Union           4,048        0.05%        1,351        0.08%           --           --           --           --
    Volusia       208,236        2.81%       48,887        2.74%           15        2.75%           --           --
    Wakulla        10,490        0.14%        2,003        0.11%            1        0.18%           --           --
    Walton         22,301        0.30%        2,980        0.17%            4        0.73%           --           --
    Washingt        8,864        0.12%        2,307        0.13%           --           --           --           --
     on
             -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total     7,420,802                 1,783,037                       545                        28
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                     ______

                              Submitted Questions
    Response from Tikki Brown, Assistant Commissioner, Children and Family
            Services Administration, Minnesota Department of Human Services
    Question Submitted by Hon. David Scott, a Representative in Congress
            from Georgia
        Question. Ms. Brown, are SNAP applicants and recipients required to
    provide a Social Security Number to receive and retain SNAP benefits?
        Answer. Hon. David Scott,

        It was a pleasure to testify at the June 7, 2023, Congressional
    Full Committee hearing, Innovation, Employment, Integrity, and Health:
    Opportunities for Modernization in Title IV. Thank you for your recent
    question following my testimony: Are SNAP applicants and recipients
    required to provide a Social Security Number to receive and retain SNAP
    benefits?
        In Minnesota, applicants must provide a Social Security Number.
    They do not have to provide the card, just the number, which is entered
    into the eligibility system, where a data exchange occurs with the
    Social Security Administration to verify the number that was entered.
    If the number is verified, the system enters a ``V'' in the system next
    to the Social Security Number to indicate it's been verified. If
    applicants don't have a number, they must apply for one, and provide
    proof they applied.
        For participants, the system will generate a message after 60 days
    if the Social Security Number has not been verified. There is a process
    for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program workers to follow up with
    the participants. If the workers receive no response, after follow-up,
    the participants will be removed from the SNAP grant.
        I hope this fully answers your question.

    Tikki Brown,
    Assistant Commissioner,
    Children and Family Services.
    Response from Patrick J. Stover, Ph.D., Director, Institute for
            Advancing Health Through Agriculture, Texas A&M University
    Questions Submitted by Hon. Glenn Thompson, a Representative in
            Congress from Pennsylvania
        Question 1. Dr. Stover, your testimony mentions nutrition
    education; what is your take on programs like the Expanded Food and
    Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP) and SNAP-Ed, and do you have ideas
    for carrying out a systematic evaluation to see where they are
    impactful versus not?
        Answer. Nutrition education programs provide individuals who
    participate in assistance programs with strategies to meet nutrient
    needs and reduce the risk of diet-related chronic diseases. The largest
    nutrition education programs in terms of investment and reach are SNAP
    Education (SNAP-Ed), the WIC (Women, Infants and Children) program
    (that contains an educational component), and the Expanded Food and
    Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP). For some programs, the education
    component is voluntary (SNAP-Ed and EFNEP) whereas others are not
    (WIC). Each of these programs has a different level of rigor in the
    program evaluation of the education component and in scientific
    evaluations that have been carried out on these programs, some of which
    has been quantified in terms of return on investment. I believe that
    given the expense of these programs that a systematic program and
    scientific evaluation remains as a key need, recognizing that SNAP-Ed
    and EFNEP, but not WIC, are under the House Committee on Agriculture's
    jurisdiction.
        SNAP-Ed, WIC nutrition education, and EFNEP are administered by
    state and local government agencies who subcontract with implementing
    agencies including nonprofits, health departments and hospitals,
    daycare centers and schools, community centers, food banks, land-grant
    universities, and cooperative extension services. This distributed
    network of agencies enables innovation in designing programs tailored
    to the needs of local communities, but the distributed implementation
    framework presents challenges for systematic program evaluation due to
    variability in delivery, content, data collection, and reporting
    measures, which are sometimes due to policy constraints at the
    institutional or state level.1-3 When asked to evaluate the
    effectiveness of USDA nutrition education programs in 2019, the
    Government Accountability Office (GAO) concluded that data on state-
    administered program effectiveness, reported at the state level, are
    not sufficient for aggregation and review at the Federal level.\4\
        While innovation and consideration of local and cultural contexts
    should be encouraged in the delivery of nutrition education programs, a
    program common evaluation framework that includes a common set of core
    measures, such as the RE-AIM \5\ (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption,
    Implementation, and Maintenance) framework, is needed for robust
    evaluation of program effectiveness. There is an additional need for
    rigorous scientific evaluations of these programs outside of
    programming evaluations. Collection of common and impactful outcome
    measures is needed to allow data aggregation, comparison of program
    learning outcomes and systematic evaluation of the impact and cost
    effectiveness of all Federal nutrition education programs. It would
    also permit the identification of best practices and innovations in the
    delivery of these education programs.
        Scientific Evaluation: Scientific evaluations should be performed
    by investigators external to these educational programs yet working
    hand-in-hand with program administrators to allow for more rigorous
    study designs, use of gold-standard and rigorous assessments, and the
    mitigation of program biases that all promote potentially stronger
    evidence. Such evaluations could be optimally funded through
    competitive funding processes that support creative approaches and
    collaborative teams comprised of researchers and program
    administrators. Currently no mechanisms for external scientific
    evaluations for these programs exist. The scientific evaluations that
    have been completed, including the few studies on program impact on
    program goals (e.g., improving diet and food security), have been
    investigator driven proposals awarded from a variety of general funds,
    none of which were specifically marked for nutrition education
    evaluations.
        Program Evaluation: There are opportunities to harmonize approaches
    and program evaluation of all nutrition education programs for public
    benefit and to develop consensus on the intended and desired outcomes
    of these programs. Currently, SNAP-Ed programs are evaluated through
    the SNAP-Ed Evaluation Framework, which provides 51 indicators each
    with multiple outcome measures and data collection methods. State
    agencies select from this list of indicators to evaluate their
    nutrition education programs at the individual, organizational, and
    sectoral levels with metrics for readiness and capacity, changes,
    effectiveness and maintenance, and outcomes. Seven of the indicators
    are prioritized by the USDA, but none are mandatory, and the data are
    often not comparable even if the same indicators are used because each
    indicator includes multiple data collection methods and outcome
    measures. WIC education programs are periodically evaluated through
    state-developed reports, national surveys, and pilot studies.\6\ EFNEP
    programs have the most consistent evaluation standards, and every EFNEP
    intervention collects demographic data, food questionnaire data, and
    behavior change data captured in 24 hour dietary recalls when
    individuals enter and exit a nutrition education program to track
    behavior change. EFNEP data is reported through an integrated data tool
    called the Web-based Nutrition Education Evaluation and Reporting
    System (WebNEERS), which can be used for program management and impact
    assessment. Data from this system can be aggregated to estimate program
    effectiveness across state programs and at the national level. Data to
    date suggest that WIC and EFNEP have a large ROI, with less consistent
    evidence available for SNAP-Ed. This may be largely driven by the
    heterogeneity of content delivery and the lack of systematic evaluation
    of program effectiveness. Some means to address this gap are underway
    https://snaped.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/N-
    PEARS_Memo_508_0.pdf.*
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        * Editor's note: items annotated with  are retained in Committee
    file.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Consistent, rigorous, and nationally-harmonized evaluation of
    nutrition education program effectiveness may be best performed through
    the Land-Grant universities and cooperative extension services. They
    have the knowledge, experience, expertise, and community relationships
    to monitor data collection and conduct common dissemination and
    evaluation of nutrition education programs across states or
    territories. Land-grant institutions are also ideally positioned to
    carry out external scientific evaluations as they usually house
    researchers representing the many important disciplines necessary for
    effective rigorous scientific evaluation, for example, nutrition,
    statistics, agriculture economics, family studies, data science, and
    health sciences, among many others. These evaluations could employ
    common data models, evaluation frameworks, and data harmonization,
    allowing comparison and review at the Federal level through the USDA,
    who in turn could quickly update nutrition education program guidelines
    and policies with the latest empirical evidence.

                                      Notes
        1. Yetter D., Tripp S. SNAP-Ed FY2019: A Retrospective Review of LGU
     SNAP-Ed Programs and Impacts.;  2020. https://www.nifa.usda.gov/sites/
     default/files/resource/LGU-SNAP-Ed-FY2019-Impacts-Report-12-16-
     2020_508.pdf.
        2. Atoloye A.T., Savoie-Roskos M.R., Guenther P.M., Durward C.M.
     Effectiveness of Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program in
     Changing Nutrition-Related Outcomes Among Adults With Low Income: A
     Systematic Review. J. Nutr. Educ. Behav. 2021; 53(8): 691-705.
     doi:10.1016/j.jneb.2021.03.006
        3. Rivera R.L., Maulding M.K., Eicher-Miller H.A. Effect of
     Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program--Education (SNAP-Ed) on food
     security and dietary outcomes. Nutr. Rev. 2019; 77(12): 903-921.
     doi:10.1093/nutrit/nuz013
        4. Nutrition Education USDA: Actions Needed to Assess Effectiveness,
     Coordinate Programs, and Leverage Expertise. United States Government
     Accountability Office; 2019. Accessed December 20, 2022. https://
     www.gao.gov/assets/gao-19-572.pdf.
        5. Glasgow R.E., Vogt T.M., Boles S.M. Evaluating the public health
     impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework. Am. J.
     Public Health. (1999) 89: 1322-7. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.89.9.1322
        6. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service,
     Office of Policy Support. WIC Nutrition Education Study: Phase II Final
     Report WIC Nutrition Education Study: Phase II Final Report, by Sheryl
     Cates, Jonathan Blitstein, Linnea Sallack, Karen Deehy, Lorrene
     Ritchie, Nila Rosen, Shawn Karns, Katherine Kosa, Gina Kilpatrick,
     Stacy Bell, Caroline Rains. Project Officer: Karen Castellanos-Brown.;
     2018.

        Question 2. Dr. Stover, I have long been frustrated by the current
    Dietary Guidelines for Americans process and outcomes, especially
    because they underpin most Federal nutrition programs. What are we
    doing wrong, and how can we get it right?
        Answer. Briefly, every 5 years a scientific committee (Dietary
    Guidelines Advisory Committee; DGAC) is formed to evaluate the
    scientific literature and deliver a report to HHS and USDA, who in turn
    develop the Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA). While I stand
    behind the DGA, there is always room for improvement. My major concerns
    are consistent with those raised by the National Academies of Sciences,
    Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) that are highlighted below. Chiefly,
    there are serious conflict of interest (COI) concerns in the Systematic
    Review process and the need for a tripartite committee model (discussed
    in the NASEM report)--neither of which is being fully addressed in the
    current cycle.
        NASEM recently conducted a study evaluating the process to develop
    the DGA, 2020-2025. Two reports were generated from this study. In
    2022, a midcourse report was published for which I served as an
    external reviewer,\1\ and the final report that was published in
    2023.\2\ The reports focused on progress made in meeting the previous
    recommendations from a 2017 NASEM report ``Redesigning the Process for
    Establishing the Dietary Guidelines for Americans.'' \3\
        The reports 1, 2 evaluated how effectively the seven
    recommendations from the 2017 report were implemented. The 2017
    recommendations related to: (1) reorganizing the DGAC structure and
    responsibilities; (2) increasing transparency in articulating the
    inclusion/exclusion of DGAC recommendations into the final DGA
    guidelines; (3) the need to separate the roles of the Nutrition
    Evidence Systematic Reviews (NESR) from the DGAC; (4) ensure NESR
    systematic reviews align with best practices including continuous
    training and technology infrastructure to conduct reviews; (5) improve
    food patten modeling; (6) standardize the methods and criteria for
    establishing nutrients of concern; and (7) implement systems approaches
    into the DGA. I will focus my comments on the organizational structure
    of NESR (#3 above) and the NESR systematic review methodology (#4
    above) as these two elements are critical to ensuring transparent,
    objective and science-informed policy.
        The importance of having a rigorous and transparent scientific
    process to establish the DGAs cannot be overstated, and it is critical
    that the concerns raised regarding the creation of the DGAs, which
    emerge every cycle, be addressed. The appreciation of the importance of
    food, nutrition and nutrition science in public health has never been
    greater, as diet-related chronic disease is a major driver of health
    care costs. Now more than ever we need to ensure the rigor of the
    science that underpins the DGAs engenders confidence and public trust
    in the DGAs, leading to public acceptance and adherence to the
    recommendations. Scientific integrity is key to achieving these goals.
    The government scientists involved in the current process are committed
    to improving public health, but there are both methodological and
    structural limitations to the current processes. There continues to be
    a need to increase adherence to rigorous and transparent processes used
    to conduct the systematic reviews that are the scientific underpinning
    of the DGAs.
        The methods used to evaluate and grade the strength of the
    scientific evidence in support of the DGA recommendations, which have
    recently been published,\4\ should be improved. The methods and grading
    rubric used by NESR differ from the gold standard method in other areas
    of health, which is GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment,
    Development, and Evaluations). Furthermore, DGAC members assign the
    evidence rating with guidance from NESR, and then make recommendations
    based on that same evidence. This is a potential source of bias because
    the same people who are rating the evidence are then turning around and
    using that same evidence for recommendations.
        The second concern relates to the intrinsic conflict of interest of
    having the same institution (i.e., the USDA) oversee both the conduct
    of the evidence synthesis by NESR and be responsible for policy
    decisions (i.e., DGAs) based on the evidence review. The 2017 NASEM
    report called for greater differentiation between NESR and DGAC.
    Fundamental to evidence-based policy is a firewall between those who
    generate the systematic review and those who use the systematic review
    as evidence for decision making; otherwise, you run the risk of bias
    and ``policy informed evidence'' (see above). Best practices for
    science integrity and science-informed policy include having a distinct
    third party conduct the scientific evidence synthesis. Similarly,
    better processes are needed regarding the selection of the specific
    questions the DGAC is asked to address, especially when there are not
    sufficient high-quality data available to make assessments and
    recommendations.
        Finally, federally-funded scientific research should be prioritized
    to strengthen the evidence base for establishing both nutrient and
    food-based guidance for the public and investments made in data-science
    technologies that allow more rapid translation of scientific evidence
    into nutrition policy, practice and guidance. This would allow for
    regular updates for the Dietary Reference Intake values for nutrients,
    which are a foundation of the DGAs.

                                      Notes
        1. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022.
     Evaluating the process to develop the Dietary Guidelines for Americans,
     2020-2025: A midcourse report. Washington, D.C.: The National
     Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/26406.
        2. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023.
     Evaluating the process to develop the Dietary Guidelines for Americans,
     2020-2025: Final report. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies
     Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/26653.
        3. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017.
     Redesigning the process for establishing the Dietary Guidelines for
     Americans. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press. doi: https://
     doi.org/10.17226/24883.
        4. Spill, M.K., English, L.K., Raghavan, R., Callahan, E., Gungor,
     D., Kingshipp, B., Spahn, J., Stoody, E., and Obbagy, J. 2022.
     Perspective: USDA Nutrition Evidence Systematic Review Methodology:
     Grading the Strength of Evidence in Nutrition- and Public Health-
     Related Systematic Reviews. Adv. Nutr.; 13: 982-991; doi: https://
     doi.org/10.1093/advances/nmab147.

    Question Submitted by Hon. Mike Bost, a Representative in Congress from
            Illinois
        Question. Dr. Stover, you mentioned that through your research, you
    have documented health outcomes among SNAP participants. Can you
    discuss the metrics that you used to quantify those health outcomes? Do
    you believe there is a benefit to utilizing these metrics in nutrition
    programs and particularly SNAP, to evaluate participants' health and
    nutrition, so that once they reach a certain metric they can begin to
    transition off the program?
        Answer. SNAP is a supplemental nutrition program whose purpose is
    to provide food to address instances of hunger and food insecurity. As
    currently designed and administered, it is not intended to be a health
    promotion program; there are no systematic evaluation metrics employed
    that would include lowering rates of diet-related chronic disease and
    related health care costs.
        The IHA, an entity of the Texas A&M University System, is currently
    conducting a systematic review of the literature that is focused on
    health-related outcomes by comparing people who are eligible and
    participate in SNAP to people who are SNAP-eligible participants but do
    not participate in SNAP. The outcomes to be evaluated include household
    food insecurity; food insufficiency; diet quality; and dietary intake
    of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, meat/meat alternatives, milk and
    dairy, sodium, added sugars, saturated fat and fiber.
        The review will also evaluate health outcomes including
    anthropometrics (e.g., weight status, BMI), cardiovascular disease
    markers and outcomes, and Type 2 diabetes outcomes. The analyses are
    now in progress, and we anticipate a completion date in 2024.
    Response from Angela K. Rachidi, Ph.D., Research Fellow in Poverty
            Studies, American Enterprise Institute
    Question Submitted by Hon. Mike Bost, a Representative in Congress from
            Illinois
        Question. Dr. Rachidi, you mentioned that through your research,
    you have documented health outcomes among SNAP participants. Can you
    discuss the metrics that you used to quantify those health outcomes? Do
    you believe there is a benefit to utilizing these metrics in nutrition
    programs and particularly SNAP, to evaluate participants' health and
    nutrition, so that once they reach a certain metric they can begin to
    transition off the program?
        Answer. In my study with Thomas O'Rourke ``Promoting Mobility
    Through SNAP: Toward Better Health and Employment Outcomes'', we used
    data from the nationally representative National Health Interview
    Survey (NHIS). We explored the following health outcomes (all self-
    reported): health limitations to work, ever diagnosed with a diet-
    related disease, obesity, ratings of health status (poor to excellent),
    and reports of feeling hopeless or worthless. However, it would be
    challenging to use these measures directly in administering or
    assessing SNAP because many other factors contribute to these health
    conditions. Rather, I would recommend metrics that reflect consumption
    while people are receiving SNAP--the quantity and quality of foods
    people purchase and eat. The Healthy Eating Index is one useful metric.
    Also, data on the types of foods SNAP participants purchases with
    benefits would be useful. Finally, reports of what people eat would
    also be helpful.

                                      [all]