[Senate Hearing 118-123]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 118-123
FARM BILL 2023: NUTRITION PROGRAMS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,
NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
February 16, 2023
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available on http://www.govinfo.gov/
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
53-639 PDF WASHINGTON : 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan, Chairwoman
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
MICHAEL F. BENNET, Colorado JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York JONI ERNST, Iowa
TINA SMITH, Minnesota CINDY HYDE-SMITH, Mississippi
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois ROGER MARSHALL, Kansas
CORY BOOKER, New Jersey TOMMY TUBERVILLE, Alabama
BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico MIKE BRAUN, Indiana
RAPHAEL WARNOCK, Georgia CHARLES GRASSLEY, Iowa
PETER WELCH, Vermont JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
JOHN FETTERMAN, Pennsylvania DEB FISCHER, Nebraska
Erica Chabot, Majority Staff Director
Chu-Yuan Hwang, Majority Chief Counsel
Jessica L. Williams, Chief Clerk
Fitzhugh Elder IV, Minority Staff Director
Jackie Barber, Minority Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Thursday, February 16, 2023
Page
Hearing:
Farm Bill 2023: Nutrition Programs............................... 1
----------
STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY SENATORS
Stabenow, Hon. Debbie, U.S. Senator from the State of Michigan... 1
Boozman, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Arkansas...... 3
WITNESSES
Dean, Stacy, Deputy Under Secretary, Food, Nutrition, and
Consumer Services, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington,
DC............................................................. 5
Long, Cindy, Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service Program,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC................. 5
----------
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Dean, Stacy.................................................. 40
Document(s) Submitted for the Record:
Boozman, Hon. John:
SNAP Review, document for the Record......................... 56
Question and Answer:
Dean, Stacy:
Written response to questions from Hon. John Boozman......... 64
Written response to questions from Hon. Michael F. Bennet.... 85
Written response to questions from Hon. Kirsten E. Gillibrand 90
Written response to questions from Hon. Cory Booker.......... 95
Written response to questions from Hon. Ben Ray Lujan........ 96
Written response to questions from Hon. Raphael Warnock...... 100
Written response to questions from Hon. Peter Welch.......... 102
Written response to questions from Hon. John Fetterman....... 106
Written response to questions from Hon. John Hoeven.......... 108
Written response to questions from Hon. Joni Ernst........... 109
Written response to questions from Hon. Cindy Hyde-Smith..... 110
Written response to questions from Hon. Tommy Tuberville..... 113
Written response to questions from Hon. John Thune........... 117
Long, Cindy:
Written response to questions from Hon. Michael F. Bennet.... 253
Written response to questions from Hon. Ben Ray Lujan........ 253
Written response to questions from Hon. Cindy Hyde-Smith..... 255
FARM BILL 2023: NUTRITION PROGRAMS
----------
Thursday, February 16, 2023
U.S. Senate
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room
328A, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Debbie Stabenow,
Chairwoman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Stabenow[presiding], Klobuchar, Bennet ,
Gillibrand, Smith, Durbin, Booker, Lujan, Warnock, Welch,
Boozman, Hoeven, Ernst, Hyde-Smith, Marshall, Tuberville,
Braun, Grassley, Thune, and Fischer.
STATEMENT OF HON. DEBBIE STABENOW, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE
OF MICHIGAN, CHAIRWOMAN, U.S. COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,
NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY
Chairwoman Stabenow. Well, good morning. Let me call the
hearing of the U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition,
and Forestry to order. Now I would simply say that my eyes are
on you, from anyplace in the room here, up on the portrait.
[Applause.]
Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you, John, for coming in and
speaking last night, Senator Boozman, and for everyone. It is a
little weird, I just have to tell you, sitting here. It is an
honor.
I want to welcome our Deputy Under Secretary Stacy Dean and
our Administrator, Cindy Long. Thank you so much for joining us
for this really important hearing. We are fortunate to have you
here today as we review the farm bill nutrition programs in
preparation for the 2023 Farm Bill.
Last week our hearing covered the farm safety net. Today
our fifth farm bill hearing covers the family safety net. These
critical programs help people afford their groceries, make
healthier choices, find work, benefit farmers and our entire
food economy, and they lift millions of Americans out of
poverty.
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), helps
more than 40 million children, seniors, working adults,
veterans, and people with disabilities buy food to feed their
families. These are our friends, our neighbors, and relatives
who deserve to be able to put food on the table, even when they
are going through a hard time. Like the single mom of two in
Macomb County who just lost her job and does not know how she
is going to pay for rent and feed her kids. Or the retired
couple in Gladwin, Michigan, who lives on a fixed income and
worries about covering the cost of their medication and the
healthy diet they need to manage their diabetes.
SNAP reduces food insecurity by 30 percent, and it provides
needed benefits to more than one million of our Nation's
veterans. Studies show that families who participate in SNAP
are healthier than eligible people who do not, reducing health
care costs by as much as $5,000 per person per year.
Every parent will tell you that a hungry child cannot
learn, and we know that eligible children who participate in
SNAP have better educational outcomes and future participation
in the work force.
SNAP is one of the most responsive and effective economic
tools we have at our disposal. Every dollar spent in SNAP
increases the GDP by $1.50, making SNAP the fastest way to
stimulate the economy during an economic downturn, particularly
in our rural communities.
SNAP is also countercyclical. Just as we spend on farm
programs, and the spending increases when commodity prices are
low, spending in SNAP increases during economic downturns. As
the economy improves and families no longer need SNAP, SNAP
spending decreases. We witnessed the program expand and
contract based on need during and after the Great Recession,
and most recently during the pandemic.
Just yesterday, the Congressional Budget Office released
their updated budget projections which show the economic
challenges that still exist and that families are still hurting
as a result.
It is also important to remember that for an individual,
for a person, SNAP is a modest form of help. The average
benefit is only about $6.00 per person per day--$6.00--for all
of their meals combined. I am sure there is at least one person
in this room right now who has spent more than that on their
morning coffee.
The bipartisan work we accomplished in the 2018 Farm Bill
directed a long overdue reevaluation of the Thrifty Food Plan.
Not since 1975 have we updated the assumptions on which SNAP is
made. This update increased the average SNAP benefit by less
than $2.00 per day, a modest increase but one that is estimated
to lift 2.4 million people, including 1 million children, out
of poverty.
The 2018 Farm Bill also expanded opportunities and
partnerships through the SNAP Employment and Training Program,
or SNAP E&T as we call it, including increased funding, new
public-private partnership options, and adding evidence-based
comprehensive case management and supervised job search
components to E&T. Additionally, the 2018 Farm Bill invested in
SNAP technology improvements and strengthened the SNAP quality
control system.
As we turn to the 2023 Farm Bill, I look forward to
strengthening health outcomes in SNAP through programs like
SNAP Nutrition Education and the Gus Schumacher Nutrition
Incentive Program that we call Double Up Bucks. We should
continue to support individuals in finding long term employment
through SNAP E&T while rejecting harsh work requirements that
only serve as barriers to Americans getting temporary help that
they need.
SNAP, and other nutrition programs that we will consider
today like the Emergency Food Assistance Program, or TEFAP, the
Commodity Supplemental Food Program, and the Food Distribution
Program on Indian Reservations, weave the fabric of a proven
safety net for American families--a safety net we must preserve
and protect.
While it is not the topic of today's hearing, I want to
commend the USDA for announcing their efforts to update the WIC
food package as well as their proposed rule to make school
meals more nutritious through thoughtful, common-sense
policies.
I look forward to hearing important feedback from our
stakeholders that we will be doing through our subcommittee,
and with that, I am going to turn to my Ranking Member, Senator
Boozman.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BOOZMAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
ARKANSAS
Senator Boozman. Thank you, Madam Chair, and
congratulations on the portrait. We had a great event last
night. It was the who's who of agriculture from throughout the
country that was here to celebrate. The Chairwoman allows us to
have farm groups in the hearing room to meet with, so now, if
you are not present you will still be present, looking down,
making sure that I behave while we are visiting with these
groups.
Chairwoman Stabenow. That is right.
Senator Boozman. As I meet with Arkansans, food insecurity
is an all-too-familiar experience in rural and urban parts of
my State. Thankfully, the nutrition programs that this
Committee authorizes, programs I have been proud to support,
are there to provide help. I have long advocated for domestic
and international food assistance programs. In fact, some of
the most meaningful accomplishments the Chairwoman and I
achieved in the 117th Congress were related to feeding hungry
people.
As we work our way through the titles of the farm bill, it
is important for this Committee to review our nutrition
programs and make sure they are working as intended and being
implemented properly by USDA, like every other farm bill
program.
Many do not realize this, but the nutrition title is, by
far, the costliest title in the bill. Yesterday's CBO baseline
projection shows that farm bill nutrition programs--not the
entire farm bill but the farm bill nutrition programs--will
cost more than $1.2 trillion over 10 years, which is greater
than 80 percent of the total cost of the bill. In fact,
according to CBO, we will spend more on SNAP from 2023 to 2033
than we have in the previous two decades combined. Since the
last farm bill, the cost of the largest of these programs, the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, has grown
by more than 94 percent, from $65 billion annually in 2018, to
an expected $127 billion in 2023.
The pandemic and inflation drove some of these cost
increases, but let there be no doubt that the largest driver
was a decision by the leadership of the Food, Nutrition, and
Consumer Services mission area to abandon 40 years of precedent
and increase SNAP benefits by 21 percent to record high levels,
levels that are unsustainable. Some will cynically point to the
provisions to update the Thrifty Food Plan in the 2018 Farm
Bill as the basis for USDA's action, but Congress never agreed
to permit a quarter of a trillion-dollar spending increase. As
the Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently documented,
FNCS used a sloppy process with an accelerated schedule. USDA
knew the outcome it wanted and then backed into it. Because of
these actions, FNCS's political appointees have made passage of
the 2023 Farm Bill much more difficult because they showed a
lack of good judgment and gross abuse of discretion. By leaning
on the scales, they chose to disrupt the delicate balance of
the farm bill coalition and severely eroded the trust that is
crucial to legislate and to govern.
When one program constitutes more than 80 percent of the
spending in the next farm bill, and thereby effectively crowds
out the ability to make crucial investments in every other
title, is there really any room left for farmers in the
traditional farm bill coalition?
As a reminder, SNAP is intended to supplement a
beneficiary's monthly grocery budget. It was not created to
serve as the beneficiary's monthly grocery budget. SNAP is
available to anyone who qualifies because it is an entitlement
program. There are no participation caps. There are, however,
specific requirements to receive benefits. One of those
requirements is related to work.
To qualify for benefits, participants must work 20 hours a
week or be in job training. I think most would agree that 20
hours a week is equal to part-time work. For nearly three
years, SNAP participants have been exempted from work
requirements. It is time for this exemption to end and it is
time for USDA to get serious about enforcing work requirements.
States should no longer be allowed to game the system. Jobs,
good jobs, are plentiful. There are more than 11 million jobs
open across the country, equivalent to nearly two job openings
for every unemployed person. Approximately five million of
those job openings are in 25 States and territories that are
not enforcing work requirements. This job gap pushes labor
costs higher, slows supply chains, delays our economic recovery
from the pandemic, and importantly, is a large contributor to
the historic inflation facing our Nation.
Why is the Biden Administration not promoting work? As
study after study proves, work equals dignity. A culture of
dependence weakens our communities and our country. SNAP is a
valuable program, but it should lead to self-reliance, not
generational dependence.
As someone who has consistently supported SNAP, WIC, and
school nutrition programs, I cannot overstate how damaging
FNCS's conduct has been. I am deeply disappointed in its
appointed leadership. This is why oversight is so necessary,
because at the end of the day what FNCS has done has weakened
the program it supposedly was trying to help. That,
unfortunately, will be the legacy of this decision.
Madam Chair, I request inclusion in the hearing record the
report conducted by the GAO on the Thrifty Food Plan, the GAO
determination that USDA failed to submit the Thrifty Food Plan
food basket increase to Congress as a rule as required by the
congressional Review Act, and the updated baseline released by
CBO yesterday, which shows an increase in SNAP outlays from
2023 to 2032 by $93 billion dollars, likely in large part due
to USDA having the ability to increase the cost of the food
basket under the Thrifty Food Plan again in 2027 and 2031.
Chairwoman Stabenow. So ordered, without objection.
[The document can be found on page 119-252 in the
appendix.]
Senator Boozman. Thank you. Again, I thank the Chairwoman
very much for holding this really important hearing and look
forward to our witnesses. Thank you.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you so much.
We will now turn to our Deputy Under Secretary Dean, and we
are so glad to have you with us, both of you with us. Ms. Stacy
Dean is Deputy Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and
Consumer Services at the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Prior
to this role, she served as Vice President for Food Assistance
Policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. She
earned her undergraduate and master's degrees from the
University of Michigan--and I will not hold that against you as
a Michigan State University grad. We are so glad to have you
here.
Let me also introduce Mrs. Cindy Long, who serves as
Administrator for the Food and Nutrition Service Program at
USDA. She most recently served as Acting Administrator for FNS
and as Deputy Administrator for Child Nutrition Programs.
Welcome to both of you, and we will ask you to proceed.
STATEMENT OF STACY DEAN, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY, FOOD,
NUTRITION, AND CONSUMER SERVICES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, D.C.
ACCOMPANIED BY CINDY LONG, ADMINISTRATOR, FOOD AND NUTRITION SERVICE
PROGRAM, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Ms. Dean. Thank you so much, Chairwoman Stabenow and
Ranking Member Boozman for giving us the opportunity to be here
with you today. You introduced us so I will not take my time
doing that. I will flag that Administrator Long and I were both
remarking, we started our work on Federal nutrition programs
when Chairman Lugar was leading the Committee, and we went
through and had a story about all of the chairs, and look
forward to adding you to our storied list. It is wonderful to
be here.
At my role at USDA, I had the privilege to see the farm
bill's nutrition programs in action across our country, in big
cities and small rural towns, Tribal communities, job training
centers, grocery stores, farmers markets, and food banks. I
have seen firsthand the critical role our programs play in
helping reduce poverty, supporting the local economy, and
promoting food and nutrition security.
As we look ahead to how to strengthen our Federal nutrition
programs we at USDA are looking at how best to advance food and
nutrition security, modernize the programs, particularly with
respect to delivery, steward them with integrity, and integrate
an equity lens into our work.
Secretary Vilsack has charged us to help all Americans
achieve not only food security but also nutrition security.
Nutrition security means having consistent and equitable access
to healthy, safe, affordable food essential to health and well-
being. SNAP, the cornerstone of the farm bill's nutrition
title, is one of the most effective tools for helping low-
income households achieve nutrition security. The Chairwoman
did a far better job than I, but it reduces poverty and food
hardship. It is a lifeline for its 41 million participants.
About four out of five households include either a child, an
elderly individual, or an individual with a disability.
By infusing food dollars into the economy, SNAP also
benefits retailers, grocery store employees, truck drivers,
food manufacturers, and, of course, the hard-working farmers
who grow and produce our food.
As it is designed to do, SNAP participation expanded early
in the pandemic in response to sudden increased need. Congress
also took action to strengthen SNAP even more by providing a
temporary boost to benefits and providing new flexibilities
that enabled the program and the States running it to adapt to
evolving and uncertain conditions. As that temporary help and
flexibility now ends, we will return to a new normal, and in
that new normal SNAP participants will receive a stronger
benefit that has been adjusted to reflect our assessment of the
current cost of a budget-conscious healthy diet, a directive
from the 2018 Farm Bill.
We are also working to modernize program delivery and
strengthen integrity. Our program integrity efforts include
enhancing fraud detection, conducting more robust oversight and
data collection, and minimizing improper payments and
administrative errors. To modernize our programs we are working
to make it easier for those who are eligible to enroll and
participate. We are also expanding online shopping with a focus
on smaller, independent retailers, so SNAP participants, no
matter where they live, can access the same services available
to all shoppers.
We are strengthening SNAP employment and training programs,
consistent with the 2018 Farm Bill. Congress directed us to
work with States to implement evidence-based practices, match
participants with the right services, and partner with State
work force systems, all to help participants gain the skills
employers need in today's economy.
Finally, we are focused on increasing equity across our
programs. For example, we are expanding the reach of The
Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP), into underserved
areas, including remote, rural, Tribal, and low-income
communities, so that communities that have long faced systemic
barriers to participating in this program and opportunity can
have reliable access to food when they need it most.
Our equity efforts also include furthering Tribal
involvement in our nutrition programs, and these include the
2018 Farm Bill's historic self-determination projects for our
Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations, which
supports Tribal food sovereignty by allowing Tribes to procure
their own food for their people from Tribal producers. We are
providing Tribal communities with new resources to develop and
deliver culturally tailored nutrition education.
It is worth nothing that through our food and nutrition
security efforts we are also working to support another of
Secretary Vilsack's key goals, and that is the support of more
and better markets and improving the resilience of U.S.
agriculture. Specifically, we are working to strengthen
connections between farmers, ranchers, and our nutrition
programs. The upcoming farm bill is an important opportunity to
build on the remarkable success of our Federal nutrition
programs, and we stand ready to work with you.
Thank you, and I really do look forward to our conversation
today. We both do.
[The prepared joint statement of Ms. Dean and Mrs. Long can
be found on page 40 in the appendix.]
Chairwoman Stabenow. Well, thank you very much. We will
begin questions now, and I appreciate very much both of you
responding.
First let me say that, let us talk a little bit more about
the Thrifty Food Plan update because this was a conscious
effort put into the farm bill because there had not been an
update since 1975 on the basic assumptions on which we provide
help in terms of the food programs. Things like how people
prepare food and costs and other things have not been looked
at, and certainly there have been many, many changes since
1975. This was an effort to do a real analysis.
Challenges, questions raised by GAO that we would like you
to respond to, but also the results provided really a modest
but meaningful increase to benefit millions of people across
the country, as I indicated, about $2.00 a day because of the
comprehensive update of assumptions that were made in 1975.
At this point could you talk about how the USDA conducted
the review and more about what this really means to real
people, because rather than big numbers, I mean, we are talking
about what this means to an individual person, individual
family, as they are trying to get some help to be able to feed
their family.
Ms. Dean. Thank you. We appreciate the opportunity to talk
about the reevaluation. I just want to say we do stand by the
process. It was a sound process. It was robust and evidence-
based, and as you say, resulted in the first increase in real
purchasing power of the benefit in over 45 years. That amount
ended up being 40 cents per person per meal. There is this, of
course, an aggregate. It was a significant increase, but it
also very clearly put healthy food within reach for tens of
millions of Americans.
Just to comment briefly on the process, as you pointed out,
the farm bill language directed us to reevaluate and
essentially update our estimate of the cost of a budget-
conscious healthy diet. It was very specific to do that update
with four particular criteria: current prices, the new dietary
guidelines, the nutrients in food, and to consider the foods
that Americans eat, what types of foods they buy. The idea was
to balance all of those things, or to optimize them, within our
existing Thrifty Food Plan model.
I think it is really important that everyone here
understand we did not take the approach from 2020 and rebuild
it from the ground up. We took the model that had been the
basis for the Thrifty Food Plan going back decades and updated
it for the four parameters which you all directed us to do. We
have deep expertise on the Thrifty Food Plan within the
Department, both at FNS, ERS, and ARS, so we worked with our
colleagues there.
It was a very robust effort. I would argue it was a very
conservative effort. GAO pointed out several areas where there
was evidence but it was not, in our minds, clear and convincing
evidence to make a change, and the areas that they suggested,
had we made a change, would have increased the Thrifty further.
We just wanted to follow the four specific areas and update
where there was clear and compelling evidence, and the primary
place where there was evidence, and GAO commended our change
there, was to use new price data. Instead of using households'
recollection of how much they pay, we actually have the ability
to pull the scanner data and price data right off of the store
shelves. That change was the primary result in why benefits
increased, although there were a few others. Again, as you
said, it resulted in a modest per-household change but it did
put healthy food within reach for millions of struggling
Americans.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much, and I think it is
also important to note that just as in the increases that come
in the commodity title or crop insurance because of conditions
and so on, it is built into the baseline every time. Now this
is built into the baseline. This is not something that has to
be newly paid for ever year. Correct? Because that was a 40-
some-year look-back, as opposed to now year-by-year, you have
basically a reset so that as it moves forward this becomes
something very modest and built into the baseline. Is that
correct?
Ms. Dean. That is exactly right. You directed it, so it is
current law and built into the baseline.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you. Let us talk for a minute--
actually, I am out of time, so I am going to wait and come
back, if I have an opportunity to talk about the Double Up
Bucks program, which I think has been very successful in
helping people eat healthier foods. Looking forward to that,
but I am going to turn it to Senator Boozman.
Senator Boozman. Thank you, Madam Chair.
When the 2018 Farm Bill was done what was the CBO score for
Thrifty Food?
Ms. Dean. I believe--I cannot recall whether CBO gave it no
score or a----
Senator Boozman. It was not scored. It was not a cost. That
was the congressional understanding, that it would be at no
cost. I am sure USDA provided input to CBO concerning it, and
so again, we had a no-cost score and yet this cost $250
billion.
I guess the question is, who identified the Thrifty Food
plan reevaluation as a means to increase the SNAP benefit
levels?
Ms. Dean. Senator, I think that is not how the sequence
occurred. We went about undertaking the evaluation, again----
Senator Boozman. Who is ``we''?
Ms. Dean. Sorry. FNCS. The Secretary and I worked with the
team in providing direction. We set forth, and I believe we
accomplished a sound, evidence-based process to update the
Thrifty relative to those four criteria. When the team set
about doing it they found they could not update it without
incurring a cost in terms of reflecting current price data, the
new DGAs, and the food consumption and nutrients.
Senator Boozman. I have got Section 4002. You mentioned the
four criteria. Cost is not part of this.
Ms. Dean. I am sorry?
Senator Boozman. Cost is not part of this.
Ms. Dean. That is correct.
Senator Boozman. Okay. Again, you have got a CBO score of
zero, congressional intent zero, USDA's help in regard to what
was going on is zero, and yet you increased it $250 billion
without any congressional interaction whatsoever.
In response to the findings of GAO, USDA indicated that the
TFP reevaluation could have increased SNAP benefits by even a
larger amount. What was the maximum increase that could have
been applied in the reevaluation and how was it determined to
cap the increase at a quarter of a trillion dollars?
Ms. Dean. Again, Senator, that is not how we approached the
question. The question was to solve for what is our best
estimate of a healthy budget-conscious diet. Had we, for
example, allowed a wider array--for example, when we were
pulling the scanner data and the prices for different
categories of food it was the lowest-cost food in each
category. If we had allowed all foods in a particular category
then that would have increased the cost. We were very mindful
that the word ``thrifty'' is a part of the plan, and it is
intended to be a low-cost----
Senator Boozman. You felt like you had the authority to go
ahead and do the higher categories if you wanted to.
Ms. Dean. No. I think the law makes clear that we were
meant to design, and for the past 45 years have had a low-cost
budget. We made decisions in keeping with where we have been
for the past four decades. You just asked me a hypothetical and
I gave you a hypothetical answer.
Senator Boozman. Well, for the past 40 years or whatever it
has been cost neutral.
Ms. Dean. Prior updates have been cost neutral, but they
have not been done with the directive of the statute.
Senator Boozman. It is my understanding that USDA recently
hired a new SNAP director, Catherine Buhrig.
Ms. Dean. Yes.
Senator Boozman. There are questions as to whether she will
relocate to Washington, DC, from Pennsylvania. SNAP is one of
the largest entitlement programs in the Federal Government.
What is her official duty station? Is her position officially a
remote duty station? If so, can you explain how Ms. Buhrig will
operate a program that spends more than $100 billion annually?
Ms. Dean. We are delighted to have Cathy Buhrig join us.
She has been the SNAP director for Pennsylvania for many years.
She is an incredibly talented and experienced leader. All of
our national office SES work out of our Braddock Road office in
Alexandria, and she will be there consistent with her other
peers.
You asked a very detailed question so we can get back to
you on that.
Senator Boozman. Her duty station is going to be there? She
is not working remotely?
Ms. Dean. No. I mean, I will say some staff do telework, or
if she is traveling she will need to be working from another
location. Yes, she will be working out of Braddock Road, our
Braddock Road office in Alexandria.
Senator Boozman. Okay. thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much. Senator Ernst.
Senator Ernst. Yes, thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking
Member Boozman, and thank you, Under Secretary Dean, for being
here today and for your testimony.
The Department of Defense recently updated its statistics
on military eligibility which show that, unbelievably, 77
percent of young people aged 17 to 24 are ineligible to serve
in the military, and the leading disqualifier for service is
obesity. This is a grave national security concern, and we
really do have to do better to achieve those healthy outcomes
for our young people.
Included in the 2018 Farm Bill was a program that I had
championed. It is the Healthy Fluid Milk Incentives program.
The 2020 to 2025 dietary guidelines for Americans had noted
that 90 percent of Americans do not meet the U.S.-recommended
dairy consumption. Do you support this approach of encouraging
SNAP households to purchase healthy but under-consumed foods
such as milk and also other nutrient-dense dairy products like
cheese and yogurt to remind people of the nutritional value?
Ms. Dean. Yes, Senator. We are very pleased with the
progress that we have been making on the Healthy Fluid Milk
Incentives program. It has recently been awarded to a new
contractor, Auburn, and they are making great progress, and we
hope to learn quite a bit of what they are incentivizing and
then the details of how it works at the register. We feel like
there is some stickiness, and if we can pull those two things
together ideally we can take lessons learned there for future
work.
Senator Ernst. Very good. It is something that I am
continuing to work on for this upcoming farm bill, and, of
course, to help alleviate some of the concerns coming from DoD
and obesity that is rampant with our youth.
I want to tag on a little bit with what the Ranking Member
was saying. A lot of us are very shocked at the CBO score that
came out, and the CBO had raised its cost estimate for SNAP by
$93 billion over the next 10 years. I do believe it is
important that we are providing critical assistance to those
citizens that are most vulnerable, but we also have an
obligation to ensure that these Federal funds are not abused
and that they are not taken advantage of. We have seen just a
shocking level of fraud throughout the SNAP program.
As we are considering ways to cut back governmental
spending we do have to maintain program integrity and carefully
analyze both recipient and retailer trafficking and fraud. What
regulatory safeguards can we provide to prevent fraud and
ensure that the government funds are utilized for the truest
intentions of the SNAP program?
Ms. Dean. Well, Senator, let me just say the Secretary and
myself and Administrator Long share your commitment to
nutrition security because it is, in fact, national security. I
think the first pathway there is to make sure all of our
benefits are offering meaningful support that meets the need,
which is why we are making some of the critical changes in
SNAP, WIC, and school meals. I just wanted to flag back on
that.
You are absolutely right that stewarding the program with
integrity is a core goal, both in the act, obviously, for this
Committee, and for USDA. The appropriations that we received
both in 2022 and 2023 actually provided a significant increase
in staffing for FNS resources that had fallen to a historic low
while our programs had gotten larger, while many more stores
had joined the program. We just needed more capacity in order
to oversee the programs with, I think, the intention and
direction that you are discussing.
We will continue to do that, and I am happy to loop back
with you if we identify an area where we need more resource or
authority.
Senator Ernst. That is good because we want to make sure
that those dollars are being used for those families that truly
do need this.
Another area that I am concerned about is that able-bodied
adults without dependents make up more than 10 percent of the
households who receive SNAP benefits. What are your beliefs
about the ability of these individuals to work 20 hours a week,
given that there are two jobs available for every person
seeking jobs out there?
Ms. Dean. Well, the group that you talk about, known
sometimes in our program as ABAWDs, or the childless adults,
just to make sure we are all on the same page, when the public
health emergency ends in May--I am sorry. Let me step back.
Congress temporarily suspended the work requirement that
applies to that population during the public health emergency,
so that policy will be changing in May, when the public health
emergency ends. As a result of the time limit being suspended
that population's participation in the program did grow.
What we know about that requirement--and I think was
originally set up and intended to support work, to promote
work--it is not having that result. There are multiple studies
that show that it does not result in increasing employment and,
in fact, results in increasing food hardship amongst the group.
As designed it is not working. The White House Conference
on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health, the strategy document called
on Congress to reevaluate and take a look at that rule to see
if it could be reconfigured to meet its intended purpose, which
is to support and promote work, not increase food insecurity.
Senator Ernst. Yes, I appreciate that answer, and we do
need to get back to getting those able-bodied adults off of the
program and focusing again on the families that truly do need
this assistance. We are under extreme constraints with our
budget and appropriations, and we need to find a way to make
sure that those dollars are going as far as we can with the
people that actually need that assistance and programs. Thank
you very much.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much. Senator Welch is
next.
Senator Welch. Thank you very much. You know, the Ranking
Member mentioned that the food program is the biggest expense,
and Senator Ernst, you were talking about having to make sure
the dollars are well spent. I am a strong supporter of
nutrition. It was a huge, huge benefit for my families and the
kids. Any program that we have in government should always be
reviewed to make certain that it is working properly and
effectively.
It is the case in Vermont that our farmers love being able
to put food on the table of the kids and families. I mean, when
I talk to farmers they are really proud that they are feeding
America.
No. 1, to each of you, what suggestions do you have about
making the nutrition program stronger? When I say stronger, to
meet the needs of folks, and it has to be accountable. We
cannot substitute just an immense amount of paperwork and call
that accountability, because that essentially, in many ways,
will get things much more difficult for people who do need it.
I will start with you, Ms. Dean.
Ms. Dean. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate that
opportunity. I mean, in this moment of review it is important,
I think, to step back. I am trying to remember. More than half
of our participants have incomes below 50 percent of the
poverty line, meaning they live in deep poverty when they come
to SNAP and they seek its help. Senator, you are right in
reminding us to remind ourselves of who is using this program,
and it is primarily households with very low income.
That having been said, a large number of households on the
program are earners. Their earnings are so low that they need
SNAP benefits to supplement, or senior citizens and individuals
with disabilities, for example, with a Social Security benefit
that is too low to allow them to eat healthily.
We are pleased that SNAP can supplement their income, and
as you are saying, more money at the grocery store which is
more money in the food economy back to those Vermont farmers.
Senator Welch. Well, and another observation that I had in
Vermont is that many of these food programs, including at
schools, there is an enormous amount of community participation
from local folks who find this a really wonderful way to
contribute to the community. There is a lot of volunteer effort
that goes into it, everything from the delivery of meals to the
school lunch program. Can each of you comment on that?
Ms. Dean. Yes, absolutely. Maybe I will ask Administrator
Long to talk about one of our most wonderful community
enhancements in school food, which is Farm-to-School, obviously
a cherished Vermont----
Mrs. Long. Yes, absolutely. I would certainly agree with
you, Senator, that bringing local foods into schools----
Senator Welch. Are you on the microphone? I am not sure.
Mrs. Long. I am. Sorry. Can you hear me now?
Senator Welch. Yes.
Mrs. Long. Thank you. I would certainly agree with you,
Senator, that bringing local foods into schools really is a way
to pull the community together. Thanks to the support of
Congress we have had a longstanding Farm-to-School program that
was recently renamed for Senator Leahy. We have been able to
fund over 1,000 projects that have made those connections
between schools and communities and their local producers, and
it can be transformative.
I will also just quickly flag that that has been a
longstanding program, in place a little over a decade, and at
USDA we have recently made other efforts to support local food
being even more present in schools. Our sister agency, the
Agricultural Marketing Service, has been providing funding to
States. I believe we funded over 30 States to date, for them to
assist schools and local producers in making those connections.
Senator Welch. Yes, no, I would be very interested in
working with the folks on that Farm-to-School because I think
all of us are really supportive of that local agricultural
component that is really near and dear to our communities.
Talking about the kids at school, you know, I was at St.
Albans and there are like 80 percent of the kids who are
eligible. It is really astonishing because it is a statement
about our economy as much as anything else, in the way people
are living. It is an incredible burden on the schools too
because they are taking on so much more responsibility for so
many different areas. I think that is not just true in Vermont.
It is true all around the country. There is this additional
benefit of the socialization of kids, eating at lunch rather
than being on their devices. Has there been any study of what
the social benefits are of the food security for the kids at
school?
Mrs. Long. Well, I think there are a number of studies that
show the benefits of the school meals program, including the
nutritional benefits. Kids who eat school meals are more likely
to consume fruits and vegetables and milk than their peers who
do not participate in the program.
You know, you certainly mentioned the value of a community
sitting down and eating together and socializing. That is
something that we have certainly seen has been beneficial from
something called the Community Eligibility Provision, which is
a program within the School Lunch Act that allows lower-income
communities to serve healthy meals to all kids, and it really
does encourage increased participation, it reduces stigma, and
it does significantly reduce that administrative burden that
you were referring to earlier.
Senator Welch. Thank you very much. I am over my time.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much. Senator Marshall.
Senator Marshall. Well, thank you, Madam Chair, and let me
just clear my voice just for a second here with some delicious
whole milk, the greatest drink known to mankind, known to
humankind.
My big concern with these new WIC guidelines coming out is
they are decreasing by eight quarts the milk per month for
breastfeeding women. I just remember my grandmother, the
greatest nutritionist of all time, saying that milk was so
important for breastfeeding moms. Guess what? As an
obstetrician I learned the same thing. I am concerned about the
WIC guidelines. I am concerned about the fact that whole milk
is not in schools. The skim milk just simply does not have the
good taste. We are going to have a generation of men and women
with osteoporosis a decade sooner than a generation where we
were all raised on milk, whole milk. By the way, did I mention
it is good for absorbing fat-soluble vitamins A, D, and K?
Senator Welch. You are leaving out chocolate.
Senator Marshall. Chocolate milk, yes, it is better than no
milk, but the whole milk is the key. Okay. So on to SNAP.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Let me just note that you did not
share this with the whole Committee.
Senator Marshall. The milk? I tried to get it in here but
they would not let me, Madam Chair. They would not. I would
love to.
Okay. On to SNAP. I want to make it clear I want every
person in America that is in need that they get food. I do not
want kids going hungry, that nutrition is so important, you
know, from preconception to pregnancy, it is also important.
The SNAP budget is impacted by inflation, just like
families back home are. We have groceries that are up at least
18 percent over the past two years. Our food inflation, since
January 2021, is up 20 percent, but the SNAP benefits have gone
up 50 percent.
I guess my question for you, Madam Secretary, is why are
SNAP benefits outpacing inflation, and where was the
congressional authority to increasing spending beyond
inflation?
Ms. Dean. Senator, first let me say we agree with you on
increasing dairy consumption, and we actually believe the WIC
food package alignment is to the dietary guidelines. We are
trying to make the package more responsive to what parents are
looking for, more flexible, more options. Cheese, yogurt,
yogurt in container sizes that parents want, which we think
will increase overall redemption of the dairy benefit. The
proposed rule is out. Comments due on Tuesday, so please give
us your comments.
With respect to SNAP, I think there are a couple of layers
in there, so thank you for giving me the opportunity. SNAP
benefits are adjusted each year on October 1st to reflect food
inflation, so that the program does not lose purchasing power
each year. Almost all of our food programs do that, and we
really thank Congress for building in that automatic adjuster
so that the purchasing power does not decrease. That was one of
the changes.
The other change would, of course, be the Thrifty Food Plan
adjustment that we talked about earlier in the hearing, where
because our estimate of the cost of a healthy budget-conscious
diet went up by 21 percent, that translated into increased SNAP
benefits. That was also part of the increase. We did that
reevaluation at the direction of Congress, from the 2018 Farm
Bill.
The rest of, if it is okay with you we will take a look
with your staff and sort out whether participation or other
factors were part of those increases.
Senator Marshall. Great. I just want to emphasize that
mainly because of inflation, SNAP was spending $65 billion a
year in 2018-2019 frame to $110 billion. Inflation for
groceries impacts everybody, including the Federal Government.
I want to turn just for a second to some of the States are
not following the requirements for exceptions to getting SNAP,
the working requirements. In fact, 18 States are currently
using waivers, despite their unemployment being below six
percent. Ten percent of SNAP recipients are able-bodied adults
without dependents. Why is the USDA not enforcing the law? Why
are we letting these States get away with this waiver when they
do not qualify for it?
Ms. Dean. Well, I probably did not say it clearly earlier,
but Congress suspended the three-month time limit, or the able-
bodied adult work requirement, for the duration of the public
health emergency. That is what is going on now, and we have
been working fairly aggressively with States to ensure that
they are reinstating the law when that time limit suspension is
over.
The rule is incredibly complicated, and we often see
individuals who should be exempt from it falling prey to it.
You know, just let me spend a moment underscoring this rule
applies to veterans, homeless individuals, a 19-year-old who
has just aged out of foster care and might struggle to find
work.
Senator Marshall. Right. Again, we have to prioritize who
gets the funding for the food. I do not want anyone to go
hungry, but when we have seven million able-bodied men between
the ages of 25 and 45 that are not working potentially
qualifying for SNAP benefits, it just does not seem fair that
there are people on the other end of the spectrum that truly,
truly need the help, when there are so many open jobs in this
Nation. I think it is time to get rid of the waivers. Thank
you.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much. Senator Booker.
Oh, excuse me. Senator Klobuchar just walked in. You are
bumped. I am sorry. We keep moving in the Committee. I
apologize. I apologize.
Senator Booker. I will always be happy to be bumped by
Senator Klobuchar.
Chairwoman Stabenow. I want to thank all of our members,
including the Chairman of the Judicial Committee, who are going
back and forth and back and forth. I appreciate it. Senator
Klobuchar, you are next.
Senator Klobuchar. All right. Thank you. First of all,
thank you for your good work. Minnesota has a long history, way
back to Hubert Humphrey was involved in nutrition programs, and
we care a lot about them.
Under Secretary Dean, I want to thank you for your visit to
our State in October of last year to see a SNAP employment and
training site with county commissioners and the Minnesota
Department of Human Services staff, and I understand you had a
chance to see first-hand the collaborative work being done with
the State and local government to support SNAP E&T (Employment
and Training). Can you discuss in more detail how the Minnesota
program helps participants overcome barriers to employment and
just about how great the program is in Minnesota, basically?
That is my question.
Ms. Dean. Well, Senator Klobuchar, you are right. It is a
great program, and I think it responds to the questions that I
have gotten from a couple of members about we have got SNAP
participants who are un-or under-employed, and we have got
vacant, open jobs. Now not all SNAP participants are qualified
for the open jobs, but there are plenty who are, and there are
also plenty who, with a little bit of help and a little bit of
skill-building could go from being a SNAP participant who is
unemployed to someone who is employed.
The program in Hennepin County is phenomenal. Basically
there is an organization in the County who is buying houses up
for foreclosure, takes the houses on, and then working with
journeymen carpenters, SNAP participants or other individuals
as a part of this work force training program are trained by
these skilled carpenters, plumbers, electricians on how to do
construction, because there is a huge demand for skilled
construction workers in Minneapolis. It is a booming city.
Senator Klobuchar. Oh, throughout our State.
Ms. Dean. Right. Here we have individuals who might not be
skilled or ready for that job but they are getting robust
training. Several of the individuals are also ex-offenders, so
they had some issues they had to work through with getting a
driver's license, in some cases learning to drive, dealing with
some of the barriers that they have to work, and the program
offered them an afternoon a week to do that.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you. Just to move to the rural
part of our State, could you talk about how USDA will support
expansion of SNAP Online to small and independent retailers who
may face challenges implementing SNAP Online? It is not just
rural but it would be particularly helpful there, I think.
Ms. Dean. Thank you for that. In March 2020, we had about
30,000 SNAP participants redeeming benefits online through a
pilot we were operating at the time. Now there are four million
households who are able to shop online. This has been an
incredible revolution in the program.
Interestingly enough, it is only about 180 retailers, in
many cases representing thousands of outlets who are on board
with us, and about half of them are small and independent
grocers.
It is our absolute priority to focus on supporting small
and independent grocers, whether they be in the city or rural,
to be able to join. They do not have payment platforms, they
may not have a staff of accountants and technologists to help
them stand up the work, so we have given a grant to the
National Grocers Association to work directly with those
retailers to help bring them on board.
Senator Klobuchar. Okay. Thanks. Last question. Food banks
in our State, like Second Harvest Heartland, have seen a 40
percent reduction, about seven million fewer pounds in Federal
commodities in the last year. While USDA recently announced
another $943 million in purchases, it likely will not be able
to fill the gap. The program has to remain responsive to access
supply, increased demand. Could you be able to speak to the
USDA's plans to ensure consistent access to food for our
country's food banks, whether through the regular TEFAP
spending or through the CCC purchases?
Ms. Dean. Thank you for lifting up this amazing community
of partners across the country who help ensure that our
neighbors are fed. We know that food banks are struggling. They
face the same food inflation that we have talked about earlier,
supply chain difficulty, and all the while families are still
showing up, seeking their help. The Secretary is absolutely
committed to the Emergency Food Network and actually announced
$1.5 billion in additional funds on top of what Congress
provides to bring our total support for the program to about $2
billion for Fiscal Year 2023.
We will continue to monitor how our partners are faring,
and while I cannot speak for the Secretary or commit what he
will do with CCC, I know this is a deep interest and concern to
him.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Senator Grassley.
Senator Grassley. Thank you, Madam Chairman and Senator
Boozman.
SNAP has historically reflected the health of the economy.
When employment rates decrease, SNAP participation rates
decrease. In his State of the Union message, Biden rightfully
touted 3.4 percent unemployment, a 50-year low.
Now, SNAP participation is at more than 41 million people,
12 percent higher than it was in February 2020. The cost of
Federal nutrition assistance has increased 300 percent, from
$63 billion in 2019 to $149 billion in 2022. As the current
Ranking Member of the Budget Committee I intend to stress the
importance of budget and spending decisions being made so we
can work toward putting in place a budget process that works.
Yesterday, CBO released their latest report on the Federal
budget outlook. They project that growing Federal spending and
borrowing leave us with an annual budget deficit of $2.9
trillion by 2033, and we have to start tackling that issue
right now.
Most relevant to today's hearing, CBO says that total
spending on SNAP will exceed $1.2 trillion over the next
decade. That is a staggering statistic, especially considering
that when we were developing the last farm bill that applicable
number was 664. Our people's confidence in SNAP is undermined
when this Administration usurps Congress' power of the purse
and very unilaterally increases the program's cost by hundreds
of billions of dollars without any concern to the fiscal impact
and the impact on inflation.
Before I ask question I am going to kind of sum up a
philosophy I have. I do not know how it is shared by other
people. February 2020, we had X number of money and people on
food stamps. Then we had to intervene and spend a heck of a lot
of money before the pandemic. I assume if you do something
because you have a pandemic, you have an emergency, that when
that emergency is over you go back to what is normal, and
normal would be February 2020, plus inflation, plus the number
of people that have increased in population. That figure that
came out of the Budget Committee is nothing similar to that
today, with what they were projecting, with the reality of if
you did not have the pandemic. The pandemic cannot be used as
an excuse to ramp up Federal spending.
My question to you, Under Secretary, what role do you think
the increase in food and nutrition spending has contributed to
food inflation for middle-class families that do not qualify
for SNAP?
Ms. Dean. Well, if I can offer a friendly amendment on your
principle, I would argue a program's share of GDP, a share of
the economy. You were talking about actual real spending, which
I appreciate. I think a share of the GDP is probably a better
marker, and I do expect that SNAP will return back as we see
participation fall in response to a stronger economy. That does
take longer amongst low-income households. We saw that after
the Great Recession too, right? They are often first fired,
last hired, and when the economy recovers it does not always
include everyone equally. It will just take a little longer, I
would imagine, for participation to abate, but we expect to see
that.
In terms of the broader question you asked, that might be a
better question for Office of Chief Economist, and I will check
in with them. It is important to remember that while SNAP
spending is extraordinarily important to the households who
receive it, benefits modest though they are, it is actually a
relatively small share of the overall ag economy and food
economy, and we can get that to you, sir.
Senator Grassley. I am glad to hear your rebuttal to what I
said, but did I interpret you right that you do expect the food
stamp spending to get back to a level of February 2020, plus
inflation, plus increase in population?
Ms. Dean. Yes, although probably not as quick--I would say
I think that will take a while to tell because not all
households are equally sharing in the economic recovery. That
will be the issue.
Senator Grassley. Okay. Do I have time for one more
question?
Chairwoman Stabenow. We are happy to have you ask a
question and have a short answer, so thank you.
Senator Grassley. Okay. I have got a long introduction to
my next question, but I have got to go immediately to my
question, but it deals with the error rate. In your time as
Under Secretary, what have you done to lower the error rate,
and why do we not have an error rate update since 2019?
Ms. Dean. Briefly, Congress suspended the QC system in a
way that resulted in us not being able to publish error rates
for 2020 or 2021. We will for Fiscal Year 2022, and I will tell
you in candor I expect that it will be higher than it was the
last time we had an error rate, partly because of how much
change has been going on during the pandemic with respect to
operations. We have been aggressively addressing this issue
with States, and I am happy to followup with your office.
Senator Grassley. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much.
Senator Grassley. Thank you.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Yep, thank you very much. Senator
Gillibrand.
Senator Gillibrand. Thank you. I am very interested in
Senator Grassley's questions. I am very interested in SNAP and
what it was before the pandemic, what happened during the
pandemic, and what it is going to be after the pandemic.
Anecdotally what I heard in New York was that SNAP before the
pandemic helped, but it was so little. It was like, how much a
meal a day, $2.00?
Ms. Dean. $2.00 per meal.
Senator Gillibrand. It is $2.00 per meal. It did not
actually cover the cost for most families. This is for Senator
Grassley. My understanding was it just did not do enough. It
was good and great and one of the most generous things we do
here in Congress, but it did not do enough to address child
poverty. What happened for most families in New York, the
fourth week in every month kids had to have low-quality foods,
high carb, high fat, high salt. Cheap food, and so it increased
chronic obesity.
What we did during the pandemic is we fixed a bunch of the
problems with the SNAP program. We made it really easy to get,
we made it easier to qualify, we streamlined everything, and we
made it more generous, and it helped. It actually helped people
get out of poverty and addressed hunger in a way we have never
addressed hunger, because we had this urgency to help people
who all lost their jobs.
In answer to your question, what I would like them to come
up with is what was it before the pandemic, what was the usage
during the pandemic, and what changes did we make to the
program that actually helped people systemically, and then
assess who needs to be helped still, is there an increase in
uptick, is the benefit rich enough or not rich enough, is it
still too little? Then give us an estimate of what would it
take to address hunger in families that need it and then answer
your question. Because I do not think SNAP was working that
well before the pandemic, and we fixed a lot of problems during
the pandemic, which is why a lot of advocates want to continue
what we did during the pandemic because it fixed stuff.
I want to give you a much clearer answer to your question
because I want to solve hunger. You are exactly right because
if we were doing everything right in 2020, it would not make
sense to be increasing massively. I think the biggest problem
is we were not doing everything right in 2020, and you and I
should look at what we can fix together, what the numbers
should be, and what aspirationally we can grow over time,
because I think you asked the exact right questions. Thank you,
Senator Grassley, for your interest in SNAP.
I want to talk a little bit about, just for the record,
Senator Grassley has to leave, but I want to talk about what
SNAP does, what the weaknesses are, what needs to be fixed. One
of my concerns is that it does not reach the right people and
it is too hard to access so a lot of hungry people stay hungry
because they cannot access it.
In Fiscal Year 2020, there were 2.5 million New Yorkers
participating in SNAP. Over 850,000 of them were children.
Reducing child poverty has been one of our greatest goals in
this body and in this Committee and in Congress overall. The
increase in SNAP benefits from 2021 through the Thrifty Food
Plan update were long overdue--this is the main thing I wanted
to address for Senator Grassley--and it uplifted over two
million people above the poverty line, including one million
children. Poverty was reduced from an additional 20 million
people, including 6 million children.
SNAP is vital to our constituents and all of our
constituents in urban, suburban, and rural communities.
Participation in SNAP has been shown to lead to improved health
outcomes, lower medical costs, improved education, economic
security, and self-sufficiency.
Under Secretary Dean, in your opinion, how vital is it to
Congress to protect SNAP from potential cuts that would result
in economic fallout if benefits were lowered for Americans as a
consequence of the 2023 Farm Bill? I would like you to use this
opportunity to explain what did we fix during the pandemic that
needed fixing, including what I just mentioned, the Thrifty
Food Plan? What should the actual benefits be if it was a dream
scenario, and why? Give us your dream and why. Then let us make
the case that these changes are important for this Committee to
look at holistically, not just an example as to what we used to
spend and what we are spending today, because I think that is
the wrong conversation. I think the conversation is, are we
meeting the needs of our constituents or are we not?
Ms. Dean. Thank you, Senator Gillibrand. While you were
speaking to Senator Grassley I worried I had not been clear in
my answer to him on the necessary adjustments as a share of
GDP. We will correct the record to make sure if I misspoke.
As you point out very eloquently, SNAP is a lifeline to the
families that receive it--seniors, children, individuals with
disabilities. It is a modest benefit and yet it is the
difference between having enough money to purchase a healthy
diet and not having enough money at all to feed your kids or to
feed your family. Cuts that would reduce eligibility or lower
benefits are deeply concerning to me in the abstract because we
know how many families are really living on the edge and what a
lifeline this benefit is.
During the pandemic, you are right, this was a moment of
extraordinary--it was an unbelievable challenge in our country,
and Congress equipped USDA and the States with a tremendous
flexibility to respond. A couple of things happened. One is
there was a really quick move to online shopping. That is an
example of a feature of the program that needs to continue to
be strengthened, access to food.
Senator Gillibrand. The ability to use SNAP online?
Ms. Dean. I am sorry. Yes, to allow SNAP to be online
ordering and purchasing of benefits.
There were eligibility restrictions that were eased for
college students, for individuals subject to this three-month
time limit, where the expectation of working during the
pandemic would not have been sensible. There was an easing of
the paperwork and office visit requirements, because, of
course, one could not go to the office, and we saw that
households were able to access the benefits.
I do want to say, the time when States had to shut down and
radically change operations, we saw participation grow by
several million people, in part due to their incredibly heroic
efforts, but in part due to the flexibilities you offered them.
They may not all make sense moving forward but we have learned
a lot about how to deliver this program to rural areas,
individuals for whom getting to the office is a challenge, and
for whom the massive quantities of paperwork we historically
demand, do we need it all still? Do we need to go back to where
we were?
You are right. We do not want to return exactly to
February, any of us, right? We have learned about a different
way of doing things. I do not want as many Zoom calls as I have
had, but it is a way for me to connect with people in a
profoundly different way than I did before. I hope we bring
that spirit forward.
Senator Gillibrand. In answer to Senator Grassley's
question and in answer to my question, I would like you to
write a letter to the Committee about what was SNAP before, who
it served and how it served, what SNAP did during the pandemic,
who it served and how it served, and what, going forward, you
would like to retain from the pandemic, what you do not need,
and how many people you think it is going to reach with those
changes, and therefore a budget. It has to be all written out
in detail to answer his question authoritatively.
Last, Madam Chairman, I would like to submit a question for
the record about moving Puerto Rico from NAP to SNAP, because
it is so unfair that the Americans who happen to live in Puerto
Rico do not get the full SNAP benefit and are capped. Even as
more people are added to the program there is no more money to
feed more kids. I would like a full answer about what is
happening in Puerto Rico today, who has access to it, who does
not have access to it, and the destructive impact of NAP, and
why it should be moved to SNAP.
Ms. Dean. Yes, ma'am. The short answer is the
Administration supports all the territories having----
Senator Gillibrand. I need it for the Committee, because
this is not something that--they do not have a lot of Puerto
Ricans, necessarily, in their State. I have a lot, but they are
all Americans, and they deserve the same benefit. Thank you.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much. You have
important homework assignments.
Ms. Dean. Yes, I do.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Very important.
Senator Gillibrand. I am sorry. I have school-aged kids.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Senator Hyde-Smith.
Senator Hyde-Smith. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank
you, witnesses, for being here today. This is most helpful.
One of my concerns, for Deputy Under Secretary Dean, is
that I would like to talk about school lunch and breakfast
programs in a different way. I am very concerned about the
recent reports that cities are opting to remove animal protein
from school meals. That is very concerning for me. Some might
argue that this topic would be better suited for a child
nutrition reauthorization hearing, not a Title IV Farm Bill
hearing, but I disagree with that. This topic falls under the
Committee's jurisdiction, and we need to talk about it.
For years, popular media has attacked animal agriculture
and have suggested that we cut back on livestock production and
related food products in the name of mitigating climate change.
These suggestions are very misleading, and climate activists
love to blow the livestock sector's contribution to greenhouse
gas emissions completely out of proportion and disregard the
essential nutritional benefits of animal protein. This
sentiment is creeping into our school systems, where it has the
potential to irreparably harm the most vulnerable in our
society, our children.
I read that, for example, that Edinburgh, Scotland,
recently became the first European city to commit to
eliminating meat from schools, hospitals, and nursing homes. I
know that is another country, but similar initiatives are
underway in the United States, in some of our Nation's largest
school districts. In recent years, large public-school systems
in the Northeast have announced Meatless Monday and Vegan
Friday initiatives. School systems on the West Coast are doing
the exact same thing. It is apparent that animal-sourced foods
are the most complete and bioavailable sources of protein, are
full of vitamins and nutrients such as vitamin B-12, zinc,
iron, and all of which are essential for healthy development in
children. I recognize that Americans have the right to make
their own dietary choices, and I want that to happen, but we
have to consider what is in the school meals we provide to
underserved children who, in most cases, do not get to choose
for themselves. The health and well-being of American children
should not be sacrificed at the altar of climate activism.
What is the USDA's response to these initiatives and can
you explain whether schools that implement these initiatives
are still in compliance with the dietary guidelines for
Americans?
Ms. Dean. Thank you, Senator, for the question. We are
happy to take it. As you know, Federal law, I think,
establishes standards and a framework for the school meal
program but districts have a lot of flexibility on how they
implement.
I am actually going to ask Administrator Long to jump in
with some thoughts, given her expertise here.
Mrs. Long. Yes, absolutely. One thing I think that is
important to point out is that USDA directly purchases between
15 and 20 percent of the food that ends up on the plate in the
schools, and those purchases cross a variety of types, and I
will stress animal proteins are quite well represented in the
foods that we purchase, and those are domestically purchased
foods and provided to schools.
As the Deputy Under Secretary mentioned, school meal
regulations and requirements really provide a broad framework
for communities and local schools to make choices, such as the
ones you alluded to. Some schools and communities also use that
flexibility to make choices to highlight locally produced
items, that could include a range of foods and produce produced
by local farmers. The choices do ultimately come down to the
local communities and the local schools.
Senator Hyde-Smith. Thank you, and I would just ask that
you track that and make sure that it is staying in proportion
to what we need.
Thank you, Madam Chairman. I think my time is about out.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much. Senator Booker.
Senator Booker. Thank you to the Chairwoman and the Ranking
Member.
I want to highlight something about SNAP eligibility, an
issue that is a little broader. We have addressed it other of
my committees. During the 1990's, we had this very big war on
drugs that caused a lot of harm to people who have paid their
debt and reentered society. On the Small Business Committee, in
a bipartisan way, we said that those folks who are
entrepreneurs should not be ineligible for SBA programs. In a
bipartisan way in the Judiciary Committee we addressed other
eligibilities for people who had paid their debt to society.
However, right now, still, we have a ban on people who have
drug crimes, and have paid their debt, have served their time,
they still cannot receive SNAP benefits. Hunger and food
insecurity are significant challenges that formerly
incarcerated individuals face after release. The SNAP ban is
not just one obstacle that diminishes their prospects of having
a good life but it actually increases the chance that they will
recidivate. It is us being penny wise and pound foolish.
Individuals already face challenges who have been formerly
incarcerated in housing, employment, health care. To exclude
them from programs like SNAP actually compounds their
difficulties and again increases that risk of recidivism. It is
my hope that we can come together, as we have on other
committees, in a bipartisan way and fix this mistake.
I request unanimous consent to put into the record this
letter from a long list of groups, nonpartisan, bipartisan
groups from multiple States represented by people on this
Committee, asking for us to correct this mistake and actually
save taxpayers money by reducing recidivism.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Ordered, without objection.
[The document can be found on page 56 in the appendix.]
Senator Booker. Thank you very much.
Ms. Dean, I want to thank you for being here, and I want to
let you know that I think we are in the midst of one of the
greatest nutrition crises our country has ever seen. Right now
half of our population in America is diabetic or pre-diabetic.
Every month in the United States of America diabetes causes
13,000 new amputations, 5,000 new cases of kidney failure,
2,000 cases of blindness, every month in America, and it is not
something that is just affecting older people. It is stunning
to me that we now have 25 percent of our teenagers are pre-
diabetic or have type 2 diabetes. My colleague, Joni Ernst,
mentioned the profound reality that 77 percent of young people
ages 17 to 24 are ineligible even to serve in the military.
Much of this can be attributed to the alarming fact that ultra-
processed foods now comprise two-thirds of the calories that
children and teens eat.
In this farm bill I believe it is imperative that we scale
up the nutrition programs that we know are working, that are
evidence-based, that are making a difference to people's health
and well-being. We know that we can do better. We have clear
evidence to that fact.
One program I know that is working, and we need to scale
up, is the GusNIP program. While we know that this program
provides life-changing benefits--I have seen it myself in
communities, helping people get off their prescription drugs,
which cost taxpayers often money, helping people improve their
lifestyle and their well-being--this program is a power
incentive and benefit for farmers. We know that this will help
those farmers who are growing fruits and vegetables for the
local community.
Can you please talk about that aspect, how this pro-farmer
program, GusNIP, helps folks?
Ms. Dean. Thank you, Senator. I am happy to do that. First
let me say the Administration supports the repeal of the ban on
ex-offenders with a drug conviction, so thank you for lifting
up that important issue.
With respect to GusNIP, it gives me the opportunity to
underscore our approach on nutrition security, which really has
four components: making sure that our benefits are meaningful,
increasing access to healthy food, collaboration with thousands
of partners across the country to promote better health and
nutrition, and integrating equity across all of those pillars.
GusNIP does exactly all of that, in addition to building
stronger connections between our Federal nutrition programs and
local producers and local markets. I appreciate it. That is
quite a tee-up you gave me there.
GusNIP, essentially the way it works, and the Chairwoman
flagged it in Michigan, Double Up Bucks is one of the most
popular forms, where a SNAP participant would go to a farmers
market, say, ``Here is $20 in my SNAP benefits,'' and receive
$40 in tokens.
Senator Booker. If you can, in the seconds I have left----
Ms. Dean [continuing]. directly into farmers' pockets.
Senator Booker. That is, yes. You are seeing it
fundamentally empower our local farmers.
Ms. Dean. Increase fruit and vegetable intake, yes.
Senator Booker. Increase fruit and vegetable intake. I
really appreciate that. I have got another question I am going
to put into the record about how SNAP ED can be redesigned so
that it can start to reach more of the 90 million low-income
Americans that we need to reach, and I am hoping I can get that
for the record.
Ms. Dean. Terrific, and we share that goal.
Senator Booker. Thank you so much. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much.
Senator Thune, you always manage to time it right when it
is your turn to ask questions, so kudos to your staff or
whoever is keeping track of things as you juggle your schedule.
Senator Thune.
Senator Thune. That makes my staff happy and my colleagues
very annoyed.
[Laughter.]
Senator Thune. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member
Boozman, for holding today's hearing to consider the nutrition
programs in the farm bill. I also want to thank our USDA
panelists for appearing before the Committee today.
Let me just, if I can, direct this, Deputy Under Secretary
Dean, to you. SNAP benefits are generally provided in 1 monthly
allotment. The data suggest a correlation between the
consumption of SNAP benefits and outcomes like academic
performance. For example, research indicates that student
performance tapers the farther SNAP recipients get from the
date of their SNAP benefit transfer.
I am reviewing whether Congress should look at how to
provide States the authority to distribute SNAP benefits in two
allotments per month for recipients who would like to receive
their benefits in two installments instead of one lump sum
payment. I believe this could help improve program outcomes by
incentivizing healthy food purchase and boosting educational
performance among recipients. It could also help ease demand on
grocery stores and make it harder for grocery price hikes that
could be aligned with the dates of SNAP benefit distribution.
The question is do you agree that program outcomes could
improve if SNAP recipients have the option to receive split
issuance rather than only once a month, and then any other
ideas you would have for improving SNAP outcomes?
Ms. Dean. Thank you, Senator Thune. I read the research
that you are talking about and I just want to flag that, of
course, that was done before our adjustment to the Thrifty Food
Plan where we now really are much more confident that the
benefit is adequate to purchase and cover the costs, or
supplement the costs of a healthy diet throughout the month. It
would be interesting to see what the issues are there.
You are flagging a provision of the law that Congress
passed, I believe it was in the 2008 Farm Bill, to prohibit
splitting issuance into more than one allotment. I think the
concern there was the impact on participants, and stores, the
issue of potentially the increased cost of shopping,
particularly in rural areas, say if a household has to drive a
long way to a store, disrupting household budgets, the cost of
issuing twice--States would be charged twice by their
processors--and potentially a visit to emergency food.
Now with the benefit being perhaps our current estimate of
an adequate level, and if one could address some of those
concerns maybe by giving households the option to choose, it
seems interesting to explore whether shifting the issuance--I
guess my answer is I do not know. I would want to talk more
with your staff about it. Congress did make the decision to
prohibit it out of concern of what the impact on households
would be, which I know is something you would want to address.
Senator Thune. Yes, and I think I would like to continue
that discussion with you on that subject.
Both Congress and the executive branch have implemented
processes to serve as checks and balances on Federal spending.
Your biography notes that you served as a budget analyst at the
Office of Management and Budget, and given your experience I am
sure you understand the important role that OMB plays in
overseeing the outlay of tax dollars.
According to the Government Accountability Office, the
Thrifty Food Plan, or TFP, reevaluation you oversaw allowed
plan costs to increase beyond inflation for the first time,
resulting in a 21 percent increase in SNAP benefits. I guess
the question is what input did OMB provide as USDA made TFP
changes that are expected to cost approximately $250 billion
more over 10 years?
Ms. Dean. The process of the reevaluation was done by a
very technical team within USDA. We did consult with OMB along
the way, and they did provide us some economic analysis support
throughout. Ultimately OMB was very supportive of the change,
again, directed by Congress, and it was the first adjustment in
purchasing power for low-income households in over 45 years. I
think they shared with us the confidence that this would put
healthy food within reach for millions more households, and we
are pleased with the impact it had on poverty.
Senator Thune. Just to confirm, they did sign off. OMB
signed off on that, approved it?
Ms. Dean. I do not know that sign-off is a technical term,
sir, so we would probably want to check on it. We absolutely
collaborated with them throughout the process. I am happy to
get you the official phrase.
Senator Thune. Okay. That would be helpful. I mean, it is a
quarter of a trillion-dollar increase, a unilateral decision
made by an agency. It seems like they would obviously want to
be engaged in that.
I see my time has expired, Madam Chair, so thank you.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much. Now I will turn
to Senator Durbin, who on Thursdays, I know, juggles between
chairing Judiciary, which is so very important as well, and
being here. We are really happy that you were able to make it
today. Thank you so much.
Senator Durbin. Thank you, Madam Chair and Senator Boozman.
It is an honor to be here. It is true that I spend most of my
time in the Judiciary Committee on Thursdays. I am happy I
could join you today.
We have a rich tradition in the Judiciary Committee to
honor Chairs. We asked the Chairman to submit an 8x10 black-
and-white photograph, which is then mounted on a store-bought
frame on the wall. I am looking forward to the day I receive
that honor. I want to congratulate you on your own. I think the
portrait is beautiful.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much. I look forward to
coming to your photo or portrait unveiling, whichever it is.
Senator Durbin. Well, we do not have an official unveiling.
Seriously, it is beautiful.
Second, I would like to make a plea, and I do not know if
this is appropriate. Since Senator Marshall is promoting whole
milk for nursing mothers, I once visited the Guinness Brewery
in Dublin, and they have a policy of giving to nursing mothers
one glass of Guinness a day. They think that is very healthy,
and with rosy-cheeked Irish children I think they must be
right. If he is allowed to bring whole milk, can we ask the
Irish Embassy for their help?
Chairwoman Stabenow. We will certainly consider it. That is
a possibility.
Senator Durbin. Thank you. On a more serious note, I thank
the team from the USDA. Illinois has operated a program for
more than 20 years providing health care services to 8,000
elderly and disabled in community-style apartments, who prefer
those to nursing homes. These supportive living facilities
provide meals to these frail, low-income individuals across our
State through SNAP. What they do is pool the benefits of the
people who are receiving these meals to lower their bills and
spare them from going out to shop. This program worked well. No
financial wrongdoing, and that has been confirmed by the USDA
over 20 years. Accessible health and nutrition, giving Mom and
Dad more independent living options in a creative way. They are
not asking for more. They are taking what they are legally
entitled to and pooling it into an effort to have community
meals.
Suddenly, a few years ago, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture decided these facilities were institutions. Nothing
had changed in Illinois, no statutory definition of
institution, and these facilities provide three meals a day for
two decades with no complaint from anybody. The surprise was
that the USDA decision to terminate SNAP benefits for the
people who, if they moved back home in isolation, would still
qualify. If they left the community apartment living
environment and went to their own homes there would be no
question about the SNAP benefits.
Ms. Dean, do you agree that this situation arose not
because Illinois or these facilities did anything wrong but
because the USDA changed its mind after 20 years?
Ms. Dean. Senator, first I appreciate you bringing up the
senior living facilities in Illinois. It has been a really
innovative home-based and community care setting, and you are
right to bring it to the attention of others.
The situation occurred because USDA improperly allowed the
institutions----
Senator Durbin. For how long?
Ms. Dean. Many years.
Senator Durbin. Twenty years. That is it?
Ms. Dean. Sorry?
Senator Durbin. That is the reason?
Ms. Dean. Yes. We are now working very closely with
Illinois and your office to explore other options in order to
continue to see if there is a way for the Federal Government to
support these facilities, and offering the great care that you
describe.
Senator Durbin. Thank you for that. Senator Duckworth and I
added a provision, working with Senator Stabenow, in the last
farm bill to extend the status quo. CBO added a new surprise
when we made this suggestion. Keeping the status quo now
somehow costs money and must be scored. Nothing had changed in
Illinois in 20 years. USDA terminated SNAP for these residents
last December 31st--terminated SNAP. The State was forced to
obtain a temporary Medicaid waiver to partially replace the
shortfall of SNAP funds.
I do not get it. These are people, seniors, disabled
people, eligible for SNAP, who were taking their check and
pooling it with others that they are living with so they could
have a community meal, and all of a sudden this is illegal,
after 20 years. We need a solution and I hope you can assure me
that you will work with me in finding one.
Ms. Dean. In earnest, sir, yes.
Senator Durbin. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much. Senator Fischer.
Senator Fischer. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Our nutrition programs play an important role in helping
families navigate difficult times. Unfortunately, we know
perhaps the biggest economic challenge facing Americans is
inflation. In particular, families have been hit hard by
inflation at the grocery store.
Since President Biden took office, the food-at-home price
index is up 19.6 percent. Grocery prices for many family
staples have skyrocketed. For example, chicken breast prices
are up 32 percent, milk up 21 percent, ground beef up 21
percent.
As we have a discussion about our nutrition programs ahead
of the next farm bill I think it is important we also recognize
how inflation and policies that have contributed to it impact
the ability of families to put nutritious meals on the table.
Ms. Dean, as you know our food banks and local food
pantries play a critical role in helping to provide for
families in need. In Nebraska, the Food Bank of Lincoln and the
Food Bank for the Heartland rely on the Emergency Food
Assistance Program, TEFAP, along with philanthropic support to
distribute food to local food pantries and families in need.
Since the 2018 Farm Bill we have also seen some innovative
programs outside of TEFAP designed to aid food banks, such as
the Farmers to Families Food Box Program, which has been quite
successful in my State of Nebraska.
Could you discuss lessons learned from the Farmers to
Families Food Box Program or other initiatives that have helped
food banks to better service their partners? How could these
lessons apply to TEFAP as we think about the upcoming farm
bill?
Ms. Dean. Thank you, Senator. I really appreciate that
question. You are exactly right that our food banks are
incredible assets in the communities that they serve, and we
really want to do what we can to support them as they feed our
neighbors.
There were many lessons but I will take away two
particularly from that endeavor that we wanted to carry
forward. One is it is very clear that there are thousands of
organizations throughout the country that are working to serve
individuals in their community who were able to step in and
they were part of the community that distributed those Farmers
to Families food boxes. They may not actually be connected to
the emergency food network that USDA supports through TEFAP. We
wanted to find a way to continue to harness their power in
their communities and to see if they were interested to bring
them in to the emergency food system.
That is why the Secretary launched what we are calling
Reach and Resiliency grants to each State to explore how to
expand the emergency food network into communities,
particularly rural and remote, that may not have been well
served by it before. That is one lesson.
The other is that offering food banks and our local
community partners prepacked boxes was a really interesting
innovation that worked and saved labor and volunteer hours. We
have incorporated that into a prepacked fruit and vegetable box
that has become popular amongst our food banks as an item to
order.
So we will continue to integrate lessons learned so that we
can strengthen, strengthen the program and the network. I would
just say we work very collaboratively with them, driven by what
they say they need.
Senator Fischer. That is good to hear. Thank you.
In your statement you noted that Congress had provided the
option for States to suspend certain quality control
requirements during COVID. I was in touch with food banks all
across the State during those difficult times when we saw
people isolated, when we saw numbers increase of the usage of
food banks, while, at the same time, a decrease in volunteer
service at those facilities. So it was a hard time, a
challenging time to maneuver through.
USDA could not establish national-or State-level payment
error rates for two years during that time. However, you noted
USDA did continue to analyze trends that it is not surprising
to see elevated error rates during such a challenging and
complex time but that it is incumbent upon USDA to address this
with States.
My question is, States still have a variety of options on
how to administer SNAP. How is USDA working with States to
ensure program integrity?
Ms. Dean. First, I will say while Congress did suspend the
quality control system during the early part of the pandemic we
kept corrective action plans in place. We kept that, meaning
States that were struggling with error rates, that we have a
formal agreement with them and steps they are supposed to take.
Those all remained in place. We remained very much engaged with
States on making sure that they were monitoring and taking
action to reduce errors.
It is also true that during the pandemic States lost staff.
They had to shift their mode of operations, and remote services
made administration of the program more challenging. When I say
it is not acceptable but it is also true that States would be
challenged on precision accuracy it was time in our country
where we were leaning in to providing assistance and we would
hold States to take that direction.
That having been said, stewarding the program and managing
Federal taxpayer dollars is incredibly important. We work with
States on assessing their operations, taking a look at whether
they have practices or, as you point out, options that might be
making their program more error prone. It could be their forms
design, the way their call centers are structured. We are very
actively engaged with them, and we put them in touch with
peers, who may look similar and have important lessons learned
on how to provide access while improving payment----
Senator Fischer. Have you found any examples where there
are one or two things that seem to be happening across States?
You said to put them in touch with their peers. Have you found
examples where the challenge, the problem, the issue seems to
be prevalent?
Ms. Dean. Staffing has been a challenge across many States.
Then I also think the amount of paperwork that they are asking
for States. They need it to assess eligibility but it also
means that, let us say, if you asked for six weeks of pay stubs
when Federal rules allow you to ask for 4, that you are now
looking for more paper, you have got more things to sift
through.
Those are examples. There are also--I am trying to think--
options where targeting longer phone interviews with households
that might be more complex cases and spending less time on a
household that is pretty straightforward, perhaps a senior with
stable income, they have lived in the same place for a long
time. You would not want to spend the same amount of time on
those households. Helping engage with them there on balancing
their work.
Senator Fischer. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam
Chair.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much. Senator Smith.
Senator Smith. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member
Boozman. I want to just thank Senator Fischer for your
questions and your focus on food banks. My guest at the State
of the Union was Allison O'Toole, who leads the largest food
bank in Minnesota, and I appreciate you highlighting how
important that is, so thank you.
Colleagues, this is such an important hearing. I have
appreciated being able to be here and listen to the give-and-
take and the questions. I am going to just take a moment to
remind everybody here about who are the people that we are
talking about. Two-thirds of SNAP recipients are families with
children. A third are families with older adults or people with
disabilities. Under Secretary Dean, I really appreciated your
conversation with Senator Klobuchar about how we can overcome
the barriers that working people face as they are going back to
work, and relying on SNAP is a really important resource for
them. Hennepin County in Minnesota is a great model of that, so
thank you for that.
Many people relying on SNAP are folks that live in rural
communities. Nearly 175,000 rural Minnesotans do not have
enough to eat. Food Shelf data from 2022 in Minnesota showed
that some of the biggest increases in Food Shelf visits
occurred in rural Minnesota.
I just think it is important to ground ourselves in who it
is that we are talking about here, and it is helpful to me, as
I think about what we need to focus on in this Committee.
I want to dig in a little bit on what we can do to connect
people who rely on SNAP to healthy food, how it connects them
with local producers, and especially farmers markets, a little
bit about what Senator Booker was getting at, and Senator Welch
as well.
You have EBT cards, that are basically debit cards for SNAP
recipients to use to pay for their groceries, and each year
millions of dollars of Federal benefits are spent at farmers
markets in Minnesota, so that shoppers can buy their food
there. Of course, it is complicated, right, because individual
farm stands cannot necessarily set up the technology to act to
accept EBT cards. What happens at a lot of farmers markets is
that there is a central booth where people can exchange the
benefits on their card for tokens that they can then use at
vendor stands. This works pretty well for shoppers and for
vendors. I am hearing from farmers markets in Minnesota that
there is some worry that this might go away, that there might
be some change in the system. Of course, we want to make it
easier, not harder, for producers to accept SNAP.
I am going to just ask you, can you talk a little bit about
how SNAP can reinforce and support local producers and what the
USDA is doing to help vendors and farmers and farmers markets
have the equipment and technology they need to process SNAP
benefits.
Ms. Dean. Yes, thank you, Senator, and I am happy to
followup with you to learn more so we can directly respond to
that particular concern. Generally we are taking a number of
steps to try to make it easier for farmers to accept payments
electronically. As you point out, or I think you were sort of
suggesting, you have to go into a farmers market, to a central
office, swipe your card for a fixed amount, and then you get
tokens, and then the farmers have to go back to the central
office at the end of the day and cash out. That puts some
friction in the system, both for the farmers and SNAP
participants.
We are really trying to support farmers to make it easier
for them to accept payment electronically. We have provided an
e-commerce platform, basically sort of the back-end payment
software. We are providing an app to farmers to try to move
away from the tokens but a more electronic, and not just at
farmers markets but also roadside stands. We have recently
provided a grant to the National Association for Farmers
Markets Nutrition Program organization to help be the bridge
between us and individual farmers markets to support them in
this shift.
We welcome ideas for more that we can do. This is an
absolute commitment on our end to bring in more markets and
make electronic payment easier.
Senator Smith. Great. Thank you. I really appreciate that,
and we will continue this conversation because it is good to
remove as much friction as we can from the system to the
benefit of the producers and also the customers.
Ms. Long, I have a quick question about the food
distribution program on Indian reservations, the DPIR--these
ridiculous acronyms. People living on Tribal lands often live
in food deserts. They are many miles from a grocery store. That
means they are not going to be able to take their EBT card into
a store. One of the things that we do instead is allow them to
receive a monthly food package. The question is what is in that
package, and is the food in that package, does it meet the
health and cultural needs of Native people. For example, many
Native people are lactose intolerant, and so having milk in
that package is not going to work.
I know that you all are focused on this, and I appreciate
this, through the work you are doing with the Equity Action
Plan. Ms. Long, in the 2018 Farm Bill we authorized a pilot
program to explore how the food distribution program could
include food that is culturally appropriate and also,
hopefully, procured directly by Tribes. Can you tell us what we
have learned from that program?
Mrs. Long. Yes, thank you. I would be happy to. Just to
summarize, we have utilized the resources provided in the farm
bill. We have, I believe it is currently nine projects that are
underway under that 638 process, where Tribal nations are
responsible for directly procuring food and providing it to
their members. I am also very happy to say that we just
recently reopened that process and allowed more applicants.
That period just closed, and we are quite confident that given
the quality of the applications we received we are going to be
able to fully utilize the resources that have been provided to
expand the use of that option.
Senator Smith. That is great. Madam Chair, I look forward
to continuing work on that as well. Thank you.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much. Senator Braun.
Senator Braun. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member
Boozman.
I am on the Agriculture Committee, Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions. I am on a committee called Budget
Committee, which sadly has been relegated into almost a useless
appendage here in the Federal Government. We have not done a
budget that we have adhered to in decades. Agriculture is dear
to me because I come from an agriculture community, have been
involved with it as a tree farmer, row crop.
I look at how we spend money in the farm bill, and 82
percent of it is for nutrition, 11 percent would be for safety
net programs with crop insurance, commodity supports, and
conservation roughly 4 percent. It begs a question in that we
do not do budgets anymore in ag, like maybe defending our
country ought to be things that we do well. You have to live
within your means.
I would like to point out while you have opportunities like
this, we currently are borrowing nearly 30 percent of what we
spend annually. It was closer to 20 percent when I got here.
That is not a good business plan for the long run. I am mostly
preaching at this point. I am going to be interested to see how
the farm bill has turned into a nutrition bill, and it is all
part of the issue. You find out here, Senator Thune pointed to
it earlier, that the Thrifty Food Plan increased by over 21
percent, and it is now going to shove the farm bill into over a
$1 trillion trajectory over the next 10 years.
I think for anybody listening out there it is
unsustainable, and the hallmark of our country and for places
where it works well you live within your means. The economy,
when you are knocking it out of the park, grow between 2.5 and
3 percent in recent times. That is generally done with a little
lighter regulation and tax incentives to the productive side of
the economy that makes sure you are at least generating
revenues that this place needs to live upon. Those are at
record levels currently, I think due to the tax framework that
was put into place.
I think you have got to look at each part of our Federal
Government, and one that is probably most practical, farmers
who participate to the tune of about 11 percent in the farm
bill, they are the ones that produce the food that becomes our
nutrition.
What guidelines are we using within the Ag Department on
the simple issue of food insecurity? I think the benchmark is
that we try to get that under 10 percent. We have not done that
in 20 years. That is almost similar--we have balanced the
budget in 20 years. I think twice as many folks are under the
SNAP program. Why are we not reaching that goal when we are
spending tons of money more and seem to be going the opposite
way? Help me understand that.
Ms. Dean. Thank you, Senator, for the question, and thank
you for your leadership on the White House Conference on
Hunger, Nutrition, and Health, which I think the objective was
to tackle both this issue and, of course, the deep connections
between diet-related disease and health. We are both seeking to
address people's needs today with food insecurity, but also
make an investment in the future in better health by stronger
Federal nutrition programs.
I mean, I think you ask a really important question, and to
some extent I think the answer is a little outside of Federal
nutrition. Certainly we are making changes to the Federal
nutrition programs to ensure that our support is meaningful and
to push the needle on that issue of food insecurity that you
raise. It is also the case that I think some of our programs
are being asked to do too much. I think SNAP benefits are
covering a whole food budget when households are supposed to
contribute their income, but their income is strapped because
they are a working family that cannot afford childcare, their
health insurance might be out of reach for them, or they are
living in a State that has not offered Medicaid coverage. The
refundable Child Tax Credit is no longer there for them.
I think during the pandemic we saw where investments in the
safety net bolstering workers and unemployed workers can make a
profound difference with respect to poverty and food
insecurity, and it is other parts of our critical safety net
that need shoring up so that household income is not drawn away
from meeting their food needs for other purposes.
Senator Braun. You even brought up a few more things that
we try to do through the Federal Government, and there is a
need for it and I do not deny that. Somehow when you look at
the macro figures I mentioned a little bit ago--the economy
grows at three percent a year when you are knocking it out of
the park--things cannot grow here at rates beyond that because
you are borrowing from future generations. If we do not get
better at finding, like we do on Main Street--when I confronted
1908 and 1909, I thought I had a lean business, it was not hard
to find savings of five, even up to 10 percent. That is not
even in our vocabulary now, and what is in our vocabulary is
that we borrow money from future generations for good causes.
If we are going to look to the Federal Government to be there
in a way that people are going to believe it and not delivering
results where you cannot get food insecurity under 10 percent
when we have been trying so hard, spending so much money, maybe
we need to look inside. Are we running things like most other
places would have to, to make those tradeoffs to get a better
result? Keep working hard at it. Thank you.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much. Senator Warnock.
Senator Warnock. Thank you, Madam Chair, and
congratulations on the celebration we had, so well deserved,
for you last night. I look forward to working with you over the
next two years.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you.
Senator Warnock. I am struck just by the reality of my
sitting here. Five years ago, when the farm bill was
reauthorized, as it is every five years, I was actually here,
but I was outside protesting and dealing with the issue of food
insecurity in the spirit of Martin Luther King Jr., in whose
pulpit I still preach, in an act of civil disobedience. I
actually got arrested protesting some of the cuts around food
insecurity in the farm bill. It is good to be here and to have
a voice, and to be sitting at the table to help write the bill.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Well, we are so pleased that you are
here.
Senator Warnock. Thank you so much. When I think about the
urgency of our work, I think about those times and this time, I
think about Nia from Dallas, Georgia. She is a disabled mother
of four on food stamps who wrote into my office last year
asking for Congress to increase funding for nutrition programs.
She said, ``What I would usually spend for a month of food only
lasts about 2 weeks. It is hard to tell your kid that Mommy
cannot buy that this month. It costs too much.''
This idea of children being hungry in the wealthiest nation
on the planet for me speaks to the hurt of the gospel that I
try to preach and embody every week. I am a Matthew 25
Christian. Jesus said, ``Inasmuch as you have done it, unto the
least of these you have done it also unto me.''
I think for me it is always the moral question in how do we
center the concerns of ordinary people, like Nia, which it
occurs to me is Swahili for ``purpose.'' What is our purpose in
this moment? I think it is to do justice, to love mercy, and to
walk humbly with our God.
Today, in America, Federal law, in some instances it seems
to me, informed and supported by a view of the faith that sees
it as a weapon rather than a bridge, is denying food assistance
to returning citizens, returning citizens who were previously
convicted of a drug-related felony, including nonviolent
offenders and those who have served their time, at a time when
we understand much more than we did 30 years ago, 40 years ago,
about drug use, the ways in which huge swaths of our
population, whether we are talking about poor, urban Black
folks or poor white people in rural communities engaged in
self-medication and dealing with this illness.
People convicted of a drug-related felony are being denied,
having paid their price, paid their debt to society, being
denied food assistance. The Biden administration, Ms. Dean, has
proposed to eliminate this restriction. Why is this a high
priority for the Administration, and who would be helped?
Ms. Dean. Thank you, Senator, and thank you for slowing
things down and reminding us of why these Federal nutrition
programs are the best.
The Biden administration supports enthusiastically
repealing the ban, which is a State option, because it worsens
food hardship, as you just said. When an individual is leaving
incarceration we want to support successful reentry. Denying
food undermines that fundamental goal.
Senator Warnock. Reentry rather than recidivism.
Ms. Dean. Exactly.
Senator Warnock. Am I right that people will find a way to
eat?
Ms. Dean. Yes, and the NIH did a study that showed that
this group is overwhelmingly economically insecure. They are
food insecure. A third reported, in a survey, that they had
missed food for an entire day.
In order to meet our food security goals, our successful
reentry goals, and, of course, drug offenses, individuals
convicted of drug offenses it is a much higher rate of
conviction amongst African Americans than whites so it meets
our equity goals as well.
Senator Warnock. I am sad to say that my State of Georgia,
while many States have lifted these barriers, my State of
Georgia still requires people with drug felony convictions to
complete all of their probation and all of their parole
requirements to receive nutrition assistance. Georgia, as you
may know, has the highest rate of correctional supervision in
the country. We have got a huge part of the population under
supervision, and until they complete all the requirements,
basic food insecurity is the problem of these returning
citizens.
Do you think that it would be easier for these folks to
find a job and stay on the right path if they had access to
basic nutrition with food benefits and do not have to wonder
how they will pay for their next meal?
Ms. Dean. Yes, sir, I do.
Senator Warnock. Thank you so much.
Ms. Dean. Thank you.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much. Senator Hoeven.
Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Madam Chair, and again I want to
add my congratulations as well to the portrait. It really is
fantastic. I thank both you and the Ranking Member for holding
this important hearing. Secretary, Administrator, thanks to
both of you for being here.
Secretary, would you agree that we want to make sure that
people who need help having access to adequate food receive it,
and at the same time we want to make sure that the program is
as cost-effective as possible, and that we want to always have
incentives to get people to self-sufficiency? Would you agree
with that?
Ms. Dean. Yes, sir.
Senator Hoeven. Okay. Then in that process how do tools
like the National Accuracy Clearinghouse for SNAP help USDA
meet those goals, and what can we do to make sure that we are
meeting the need but reducing instances of waste, fraud, and
abuse in the nutrition programs?
Ms. Dean. I think the National Accuracy Clearinghouse, or
as we call it the NAC, sometimes will serve both of those
goals. The USDA is setting up a nationwide platform to work
with States to ensure that individuals are not dually enrolled.
If someone is applying in Maryland, the State will have the
ability, through this platform, to check whether they are
enrolled in SNAP somewhere else in the country. That prevents
dual participation, which is a program integrity goal, but it
is also a program service and access goal because there may be
someone who lived in D.C. who moved to Maryland who told D.C.,
``Please disenroll me,'' and that did not happen by the time
they were seeking to enroll in Maryland.
We hope that through the NAC we will be able to facilitate
the swift disenrollment of someone from one State before they
seek participation in another. The research that we have
overwhelmingly shows that is where we have the experience of,
again, this issue of friction. Someone trying to, as someone
moves across State lines, the experience of dual participation
fraudulently is extremely rare, but this tool will help us to
prevent that.
Senator Hoeven. Are there other programs or steps you are
taking to make sure you are meeting the need by also doing it
as cost-effectively as possible?
Ms. Dean. I would think online shopping is a good example
of that, meaning where SNAP participants can purchase food
through an online platform that grocers offer. That is a
terrific access tool. We also need to take steps to identify
and determine if that exposes us to more risk in terms of theft
or trafficking in the program. We are both offering that new
option as a customer service enhancement but then working to
track and identify any security risk there.
Senator Hoeven. Again, I think any time you can help people
that need it but also create incentives for self-empowerment,
and then make sure you are delivering those programs as cost-
effectively as possible--and that is a win, and you have to
have all of those focuses together. You are hearing that, of
course, in his hearing, I think, pretty clearly.
Ms. Dean. Well, and if I may, sir, I think the changes that
Congress directed us to take with our SNAP employment and
training program does exactly that as well. We have been
encouraged to work with States to reorient them and design them
to be more evidence-based, work force-based programs. We can
identify individuals on SNAP who need better employment and
connect them to those good, high-quality jobs.
Senator Hoeven. Yes. The other thing I want to bring up is
really prior to the increase in August 2021, to the Thrifty
Food Program, those types of changes or increases had typically
been done through Congress on a bipartisan basis. In this case
there was a very significant increase, which was done by USDA
unilaterally. Even GAO came back and said that should have been
done through a rule process. Shouldn't those kinds of changes
be done by Congress, and how do you intend to approach that in
the future?
Ms. Dean. Senator Hoeven, the Secretary of USDA, for
decades, has had the authority to assess the Thrifty Food Plan.
The 2018 Farm Bill actually directed him, by 2022, to
reevaluate it with respect to four particular criteria, and to
do it every five years thereafter. We pursued that reevaluation
and the change to the Thrifty and the subsequent change to SNAP
at congressional direction. We stand by our process. It was a
robust, data-driven endeavor, and it resulted in increasing
SNAP benefits by 40 cents per person per meal, which we think
puts healthy food within reach of millions of households.
Senator Hoeven. You think that should be done by
administrative fiat rather than congressional action?
Ms. Dean. No, sir. I am sorry. Let me respond to that
specific question. It is a congressional directive now. We are
required to do it every five years, according to the change.
Senator Hoeven. I am asking whether you are going to come
back and consult with Congress in that process or do it
unilaterally.
Ms. Dean. We learned a lot about the process and how to do
it best this go-around. We will absolutely pursue continuous
improvement and are eager to consult with you all.
Senator Hoeven. I would think that would be something that
Congress would certainly want to consider in the next farm
bill, in terms of how that process is performed going forward.
Thank you both for being here. I appreciate it.
Chairwoman Stabenow. Thank you very much. Senator Boozman.
Senator Boozman. Ms. Long, you were at FNS in 2018,
provided technical assistance. Correct?
Mrs. Long. I worked in FNS in 2018, yes.
Senator Boozman. Yes, 2018. What was your understanding of
the cost of the Thrifty Food update?
Mrs. Long. You know, Senator, at that time I was the
associate administrator for the child nutrition programs and so
I simply was not involved in the conversations.
Senator Boozman. Well, you would say, though, that since it
scored zero, right--is that correct?
Mrs. Long. My understanding is that it----
Senator Boozman. The cost was supposed to be zero. Okay?
Mrs. Long. I understand that it scored a zero. Correct.
Senator Boozman. Yes, exactly. That was with USDA input.
That was with congressional input. The entire farm bill scored
at $867 billion. You spent $250 billion unilaterally. Congress
had no intention of you doing that. None. If you understood
that that was going to happen then you should have alerted
Congress, because it is not just $250 billion. What we are
understanding now, with your ability in the future, we are
talking about another $90 billion. A third of a trillion
dollars with an $867 billion bill. I mean, how can we trust you
going forward to give us good advice?
The other problem, too, is because of this tremendous
expenditure we are looking at a base of $1.5 trillion. You
know, what you are going to do is crowd out our ability to use
funds because you have already spent them on other programs.
This is far-reaching, it is a big deal, and it sounds like OMB
was not involved either. We can find out. We will be glad to do
that. It sounds like this was a very, very small group, no
consultation, spending a quarter of a trillion dollars from
this Committee, the House Committee. That is totally
unacceptable. Like I say, the big thing is that is going to
really limit, I think, our ability to help the other programs,
which I desperately want to do. Thank you.
Ms. Dean. Ranking Member?
Chairwoman Stabenow. Let me just say, let me just conclude.
We have such wonderful bipartisan support on the Committee but
we, with all due respect, have a difference on how we approach
this. I just, first of all, want to say that whether commodity
programs go up or down or SNAP goes up and down, those moneys
are not traded. They are totally separate programs, totally
separate. If we cut SNAP it does not add money to the commodity
title. If we add money to the commodity title it does not
affect SNAP.
I will say this, having been deeply involved in writing
that farm bill in 2018, we do not know why CBO scored it the
way they did, but the reality is that we put in place a policy
to do a thorough update that had not been done since 1975. It
is written right in the farm bill, and that is what happened. I
mean, the Trump administration chose not to do that, because
this was 2018, chose not to proceed. The Biden administration
came in and then chose to proceed, which I am very glad that
they did. There may be some disagreements on how that was done
or whatever, but I would just say in terms of the directive, it
was a directive in the farm bill.
I know we are going to have important discussions about all
of this, but I think it is important to say that we passed a
farm bill that required that to happen.
Senator Brown, who is not able to be with us today, he is
in Ohio because there was a train derailment and he needed to
be there. He cares deeply about these issues. He is a member of
our Nutrition Subcommittee. I just wanted to acknowledge that
he had called and felt very bad that he was not able to be here
with us today as well.
It has been a very important discussion. We have a lot of
work to do together. I strongly support the farm safety net,
and as Senator Boozman was talking about, we have got a lot of
work to do to address the farm safety net. I also strongly
support the family safety net. I know we do, in general. We
have just got some work to do together as we figure out how we
are going to proceed on all of this and the numbers.
I thank everybody for being here. The record will remain
open for five business days, and the meeting is adjourned.
Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 12:08 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
February 16, 2023
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
=======================================================================
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
February 16, 2023
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
February 16, 2023
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]