[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: [email protected]
    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, 
        [email protected], (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: [email protected].
          [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 [email protected] 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]