[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
EXAMINING THE POLICIES AND
PRIORITIES OF THE U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE'S
FOOD AND NUTRITION SERVICE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CIVIL RIGHTS AND HUMAN SERVICES
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
AND LABOR
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, JUNE 4, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-26
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: www.govinfo.gov
or
Committee address: https://edlabor.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
36-908 PDF WASHINGTON : 2020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR
ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, Virginia, Chairman
Susan A. Davis, California Virginia Foxx, North Carolina,
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Ranking Member
Joe Courtney, Connecticut David P. Roe, Tennessee
Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania
Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, Tim Walberg, Michigan
Northern Mariana Islands Brett Guthrie, Kentucky
Frederica S. Wilson, Florida Bradley Byrne, Alabama
Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin
Mark Takano, California Elise M. Stefanik, New York
Alma S. Adams, North Carolina Rick W. Allen, Georgia
Mark DeSaulnier, California Francis Rooney, Florida
Donald Norcross, New Jersey Lloyd Smucker, Pennsylvania
Pramila Jayapal, Washington Jim Banks, Indiana
Joseph D. Morelle, New York Mark Walker, North Carolina
Susan Wild, Pennsylvania James Comer, Kentucky
Josh Harder, California Ben Cline, Virginia
Lucy McBath, Georgia Russ Fulcher, Idaho
Kim Schrier, Washington Van Taylor, Texas
Lauren Underwood, Illinois Steve Watkins, Kansas
Jahana Hayes, Connecticut Ron Wright, Texas
Donna E. Shalala, Florida Daniel Meuser, Pennsylvania
Andy Levin, Michigan* William R. Timmons, IV, South
Ilhan Omar, Minnesota Carolina
David J. Trone, Maryland Dusty Johnson, South Dakota
Haley M. Stevens, Michigan
Susie Lee, Nevada
Lori Trahan, Massachusetts
Joaquin Castro, Texas
* Vice-Chair
Veronique Pluviose, Staff Director
Brandon Renz, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CIVIL RIGHTS AND HUMAN SERVICES
SUZANNE BONAMICI, OREGON, Chairwoman
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona James Comer, Kentucky,
Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio Ranking Member
Kim Schrier, Washington Glenn ``GT'' Thompson,
Jahana Hayes, Connecticut Pennsylvania
David Trone, Maryland Elise M. Stefanik, New York
Susie Lee, Nevada Dusty Johnson, South Dakota
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on June 4, 2019..................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Bonamici, Hon. Suzanne, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Civil
Rights and Human Services.................................. 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Comer, Hon. James, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Civil
Rights and Human Services.................................. 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 6
Statement of Witnesses:
Lipps, Mr. Brandon, Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service
and Acting Deputy Under Secretary, Food, Nutrition and
Consumer Services, U.S. Department of Agriculture.......... 6
Prepared statement of.................................... 9
Additional Submissions:
Chairwoman Bonamici:
Link: School Nutrition and Meal Costs Study Summary of
Findings............................................... 45
Foxx, Hon. Virginia, a Representative in Congress from
the State of North Carolina:........................... 46
Article: Enjoying the God-Given Gift of Work............. 46
Report: School Meals Programs............................ 50
Questions submitted for the record by:
Mrs. Foxx................................................ 78
Sablan, Hon. Gregorio Kilili Camacho, a Representative in
Congress from the Northern Mariana Islands............. 79
Hayes, Hon. Jahana, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Connecticut................................... 80
Trone, Hon. David J., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Maryland.................................. 80
Mr. Lipp's response to questions submitted for the record.... 81
EXAMINING THE POLICIES AND PRIORITIES
OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE'S FOOD AND
NUTRITION SERVICE
----------
Tuesday, June 4, 2019
House of Representatives
Committee on Education and Labor,
Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Human Services
Washington, DC.
----------
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:15 a.m., in
room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building. Hon. Suzanne Bonamici
[chairwoman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Bonamici, Schrier, Hayes, Trone,
Lee, Comer, Thompson, Stefanik, and Johnson.
Also present: Representatives Scott, Sablan, Wild, Grothman
and Foxx.
Staff present: Tylease Alli, Chief Clerk; Nekea Brown,
Deputy Clerk; Emma Eatman, Press Aide; Christian Haines,
General Counsel Education; Alison Hard, Professional Staff;
Carrie Hughes, Director of Health and Human Services; Stephanie
Lalle, Deputy Communications Director; Andre Lindsay, Staff
Assistant; Max Moore, Office Aide; Veronique Pluviose, Staff
Director; Banyon Vassar, Deputy Director of Information
Technology; Joshua Weisz, Communications Director; Rachel West,
Senior Economic Policy Advisor; Cathy Yu, Director of Labor
Oversight; Courtney Butcher, Minority Director of Coalitions
and Member Services; Amy Raaf Jones, Minority Director of
Education and Human Resources Policy; Hannah Matesic, Minority
Director of Operations; Kelley McNabb, Minority Communications
Director; Jake Middlebrooks, Minority Professional Staff
Member; Mandy Schaumburg, Minority Chief Counsel and Deputy
Director of Education Policy; Meredith Schellin, Minority
Deputy Press Secretary and Digital Advisor; and Heather Wadyka,
Minority Staff Assistant.
Chairwoman BONAMICI. The Subcommittee on Civil Rights and
Human Services will come to order. Welcome, everyone. I note
that a quorum is present.
Before we begin, I want to note that several of us have
shadows today with a foster youth program. I have with me today
Phoenix Ramirez from Southern Oregon University and Ashland,
Oregon. And I want to ask the members who do have foster youth
shadowing them today to please introduce your foster youth, and
we won't take it out of your time.
I ask unanimous consent that Representative Wild of
Pennsylvania and Representative Sablan of the Commonwealth of
the Northern Mariana Islands and Mr. Grothman of Wisconsin be
permitted to participate in today's hearing with the
understanding that their questions will come only after all
members of the Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Human Services
on both sides of the aisle who are present have had an
opportunity to question the witness.
Without objection, so ordered.
The subcommittee is meeting today in a budget and oversight
hearing to hear testimony on examining the policies and
priorities of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food and
Nutrition Service.
Pursuant to committee rule 7c, opening statements are
limited to the chair and ranking member. This allows us to hear
from our witnesses sooner and provides all members with
adequate time to ask questions. I recognize myself now for the
purpose of making an opening statement.
Mr. Lipps, thank you for appearing before the committee
today on behalf of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food
and Nutrition Service, or FNS. Welcome back to the Capitol.
Before I begin I want to recognize and thank the Department
for working with staff during the government shutdown earlier
this year. Members were justifiably concerned with the effects
of the shutdown on families across the country and we
appreciate your efforts to minimize the disruption.
According to its mission statement, the main objective of
FNS is to end hunger and obesity and strengthen access to
healthy food through nutrition assistance programs. Today's
hearing is an opportunity to assess the commitment of FNS to
that mission.
Congress has long recognized the Federal Government's
important role in addressing food insecurity, which affects
roughly 15 million U.S. households, including a staggering 1 in
5 children in my home State of Oregon.
Over the course of more than 70 years, Federal child
nutrition programs have proven to be an effective approach to
providing children with the healthy food they need to succeed.
Research shows that expanding access to nutritious food through
child nutrition programs not only improves children's
educational growth and outcomes, but also improves their health
through adulthood. Because of these benefits, Congress has
historically supported and strengthened child nutrition
programs on a bipartisan basis. In fact, today child nutrition
programs operated by FNS serve more than 30 million children
throughout the year in nearly every corner of the country. In
Oregon, nearly 300,000 students participated in the National
School Lunch Program, and nearly 150,000 students participated
in the school breakfast program last year.
We should all be uniting in support of these valuable
evidence-based programs, yet under this administration FNS has
repeatedly rolled back nutrition standards, which are an
important part of addressing childhood obesity and diabetes,
and undermined programs that help struggling families put food
on the table. The administration's annual budget proposal for
the USDA outlines a set of priorities that reflect this
disturbing diversion from the mission of FNS.
For example, the proposed budget sought to make it harder
for schools in low income areas to provide free meals to all
students by excluding 3,000 schools from the widely popular
community eligibility provision. As a result, up to 1.3 million
children could be left without school meals and those schools
will have to spend more time with administrative paperwork.
Additionally, through rulemaking and other actions, the
administration is actively taking steps to undermine food
security. For example, USDA recently moved to prevent children
who rely on noncustodial adults, including children whose
families are struggling with the opioid epidemic, from
accessing free school meals through their families'
participation in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or
SNAP. Worse still, the administration is exploring ways to
redefine poverty itself by upending how the Federal poverty
line is adjusted for inflation. If successful, thousands of
children whose families still struggle to make ends meet would
be cutoff from vital nutrition assistance.
All of these actions together reveal a Department of
Agriculture that is not adhering to its commitment to provide
basic nutrition assistance for the children and families who
need it most.
Each member here knows that providing children with healthy
and nutritious food is vital to fostering the success of our
Nation's future. When children are hungry they can't learn.
Restricting access to nutrition assistance programs will
prevent children from reaching their full potential and
ultimately it will cost more in the long run.
We can and must do better.
Mr. Lipps, thank you again for being here. I look forward
to the opportunity to discuss these important issues under the
purview of the Food and Nutrition Service, and I do hope that
we can all work together on behalf of our Nation's children and
families.
And now I will yield to the ranking member for the purpose
of an opening statement. I recognize the distinguished ranking
member, Mr. Comber, for the purpose of making an opening
statement.
[The statement of Chairwoman Bonamici follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Suzanne Bonamici, Chairwoman, Subcommittee
on Civil Rights and Human Services
Mr. Lipps, thank you for appearing before the Committee today on
behalf of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food and Nutrition
Service, or FNS.
Before I begin, I would like to recognize and thank the Department
for working with staff during the government shutdown earlier this
year. Members were justifiably concerned with the effect of the
shutdown on families across the country and we appreciate your efforts
to minimize the disruption.
According to its mission statement, the main objective of FNS is to
end hunger and obesity and strengthen access to healthy food through
nutrition assistance programs.
Today's hearing is an opportunity to assess the commitment of FNS
to that mission.
Congress has long-recognized the Federal Government's important
role in addressing food insecurity, which affects roughly 15 million
U.S. households including a staggering 1 in 5 children in my home State
of Oregon.
Over the course of more than 70 years, Federal child nutrition
programs have proven to be an effective approach to providing children
with the healthy food they need to succeed. Research shows that
expanding access to nutritious food through child nutrition programs
not only improves children's educational growth and outcomes, but also
improves their health through adulthood.
Because of these benefits, Congress has historically supported and
strengthened child nutrition programs on a bipartisan basis. In fact,
today, child nutrition programs operated by FNS serve more than 30
million children throughout the year in nearly every corner of the
country. In Oregon, nearly 300,000 students participated in the
National School Lunch Program, and nearly 150,000 students participated
in the School Breakfast Program last school year.
We should all be uniting in support of these valuable evidence-
based programs. Yet, under this Administration, FNS has repeatedly
rolled back nutrition standards, which are an important part of
addressing childhood obesity and diabetes, and undermined programs that
help struggling families put food on the table.
The Administration's annual budget proposal for the USDA outlines a
set of priorities that reflects this disturbing diversion from the
mission of FNS.
For example, the proposed budget sought to make it harder for
schools in low-income areas to provide free meals to all students by
excluding 3,000 schools from the widely popular Community Eligibility
Provision. As a result, up to 1.3 million children could be left
without free school meals, and those schools will have to spend more
time with administrative paperwork.
Additionally, through rulemaking and other actions, the
Administration is actively taking steps to undermine food security. For
example, USDA recently moved to prevent children who rely on non-
custodial adults including children whose families are struggling with
the opioid epidemic from accessing free school meals through their
families' participation in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program, or SNAP.
Worse still, the Administration is exploring ways to redefine
poverty itself by upending how the Federal poverty line is adjusted for
inflation. If successful, thousands of children whose families struggle
to make ends meet would be cutoff from vital nutrition assistance. All
of these actions taken together reveal a Department of Agriculture that
is not adhering to its commitment to provide basic nutrition assistance
for the children and families who need it most.
Each Member here knows that providing children with healthy and
nutritious food is vital to fostering the success of our Nation's
future. When children are hungry, they can't learn. Restricting access
to nutrition assistance programs will prevent children from reaching
their full potential, and ultimately will cost more in the long run. We
can and must do better.
Mr. Lipps, thank you again for being here. I look forward to this
opportunity to discuss the important issues under the purview of the
Food and Nutrition Service and I do hope that we can all work together
on behalf of our Nation's children and families.
Now, I will yield to the Ranking Member for the purpose of an
opening statement.
______
Mr. COMER. Thank you, Madam Chair, for yielding.
We are here today to help understand the USDA and child
nutrition programs that it helps support. Severe and critical
role in ensuring that America's youth have access to nutritious
and healthy food.
I believe wholeheartedly that no kid should go hungry. The
wellbeing of every American child is important and proper
nutrition is part of helping children succeed in life. Students
cannot learn if they are hungry. The school meal program
provides valuable assistance to schools to help meet the needs
of their students through the breakfast, lunch, and snack
programs. USDA must do all it can to make the administration of
these school meal programs as easy as possible while
continuously improving program efficiency and integrity.
Systems run best when they are operated from the ground up, so
less paperwork and administrative burden would aid in focusing
these programs back to their original intent, serving our
students.
Another important program FNS oversees is the Summer Food
Service Program. As we know, this program helps provide meals
to kids in need during the summer months and I look forward to
working with the Administration to help reach more children,
especially in rural communities like the one I represent.
WIC is another program that I hope we discuss with our
witness today. This program helps provide young children access
to better nutrition. There are many positive aspects of this
program and we must ensure benefits are reaching their intended
recipients by making any needed reforms to prevent waste and
abuse. I am hopeful the switch to electronic benefits will help
and I again look forward to working with the USDA to see how we
can best help States to support some of our most vulnerable
constituents.
In general, rather than focusing on increased Federal
dollars or regulations that limit local providers' ability to
provide nutritious meals, USDA should work with their local
partners to help kids with the greatest need get nutritious
meals. As someone who has worked on these programs as
Commissioner of Agriculture in Kentucky, I can attest to the
importance of the national government providing these programs
the freedom, resources, and accountability they need to find
and tackle childhood hunger.
The people sharing neighborhoods and towns with hungry
youth are more capable of addressing the needs they face than
legislators in Washington. Recognizing this fact is the best
way to address the individual needs of children and promises
the greatest results in getting food into the stomachs of
America's hungriest children.
I look forward to learning more about the Department's
efforts to address these pressing needs, and I am eager to work
with my colleagues to defeat childhood hunger.
With that, I yield back.
Chairwoman BONAMICI. Thank you very much, Mr. Comer.
And I will now introduce our witness. Brandon Lipps is
Administrator of USDA's Food and Nutrition Service where he
leads the agency in administering the Nation's Federal
nutrition assistance programs, including the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance program, or SNAP, school meals, the Child
and Adult Care Feeding Program, the Special Supplemental
Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, or WIC. He
is also currently serving as Acting Deputy Under Secretary for
Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services, reporting to
Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue.
We appreciate our witness for being here today and look
forward to your testimony.
Let me remind the witness that we have read your written
statement and it will appear in full in the hearing record.
Pursuant to committee rule 7d and committee practice, you are
asked to limit your oral presentation to a 5 minute summary of
your written statement.
Let me remind the witness that pursuant to Title 18 of the
U.S. Code Section 1001, it is illegal to knowingly and
willfully falsify any statement, representation, writing,
document, or material fact presented to Congress, or otherwise
conceal or cover up material fact.
Before you begin your testimony please remember to press
the button on the microphone in front of you so you will turn
it on and members can hear you. And as you speak, the light
will in front of you will turn green. After 4 minutes the light
will turn yellow to signal that you have 1 minute remaining.
When the light turns red your 5 minutes have expired.
We will let the witness make his presentation before we
move to member questions. When answering a question please
remember once again to turn your microphone on.
I now recognize Mr. Lipps for your testimony.
Prepared Statement of Hon. James Comer, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Civil Rights and Human Services
Thank you for yielding.
We're here today because we understand that USDA and the child
nutrition programs it helps support, serve a critical role in ensuring
that America's youth have access to nutritious and healthy food. I
believe wholeheartedly that no kid should go hungry. The wellbeing of
every American child is important, and proper nutrition is part of
helping children succeed in life.
Students cannot learn if they are hungry. The school meal program
provides valuable assistance to schools to help meet the needs of their
students through the breakfast, lunch, and snack programs.
USDA must do all it can to make the administration of these school
meal programs as easy as possible, while continuously improving program
efficiency and integrity. Systems run best when they're operated from
the ground up, so less paperwork and administrative burden would aid in
refocusing these programs back to their original intent serving our
students.
Another important program FNS oversees is the Summer Food Service
Program. As we know this program helps provide meals to kids in need
during the summer months and I look forward to working with the
administration to help reach more children, especially in rural
communities. WIC is another program that I hope we discuss with our
witness today. This program helps provide young children access to
better nutrition. There are many positive aspects of this program, and
we must ensure benefits are reaching their intended recipients by
making any needed reforms to prevent waste and abuse. I am hopeful the
switch to electronic benefits will help and
I again look forward to working with USDA to see how we can best
help States to support some of our most vulnerable constituents.
In general, rather than focusing on increased Federal dollars or
regulations that limit local providers' ability to provide nutritious
meals, USDA should work with their local partners to help kids with the
greatest need get nutritious meals. As someone who has worked on these
programs as the Commissioner of Agriculture in Kentucky, I can attest
to the importance of the national government providing these programs
the freedom, resources, and accountability they need to find and tackle
childhood hunger.
The people sharing neighborhoods and towns with hungry youth are
more capable of addressing the needs they face than legislators in
Washington. Recognizing this fact is the best way to address the
individual needs of children and promises the greatest results in
getting food into the stomachs of America's hungriest children.
I look forward to learning more about the Department's efforts to
address these pressing needs, and I'm eager to work with my colleagues
to defeat childhood hunger.
Thank you, and I yield back.
______
STATEMENT OF BRANDON LIPPS, ADMINISTRATOR, FOOD AND NUTRITION
SERVICE & ACTING DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY, FOOD, NUTRITION, AND
CONSUMER SERVICES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. LIPPS. Thank you, Chairwoman Bonamici, Ranking Member
Comer, and distinguished members of the committee for the
opportunity to testify before you today. As the Chairwoman
said, I am Brandon Lipps; I am the Acting Deputy Under
Secretary for the Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services
mission area at USDA and the Administrator of the Food and
Nutrition Service.
Before I get into my testimony, let me congratulate the
young men and women that are here shadowing some of you today
and extend an open invitation. We love to encourage public
service in the mission of FNS, and if any of you would like to
join us up there, we would be happy to work with you on giving
you an opportunity to come see the important work that we do at
the Food and Nutrition Service every day.
The FNS budget, which is nearly $100 billion a year across
15 programs is roughly two-thirds of USDA's entire budget. This
committee is keenly aware of the critical importance of these
programs, which include school meals, the Child and Adult Care
Food Program, which we commonly refer to as CACFP, the Summer
Food Service Program, and the WIC Program. We know that
families across the Nation rely on these programs every day.
On an average school day, almost 30 million children
receive a school lunch and almost 15 million children receive a
school breakfast. Over 4.5 million receive meals and snacks in
childcare settings through CACFP. Last summer almost 146
million meals were served to almost 3 million children through
the Summer Food Service Program, and WIC served a monthly
average of 6.9 million women, infants, and children in Fiscal
Year 2018. These programs ensure access to nutritious foods so
that children can grow, develop, and learn, and are central to
Secretary Perdue's pledge to do right and feed everyone.
FNS is working to implement the Secretary's pledge by
continuing our longstanding commitment to ensuring all Federal
nutrition assistance programs serve eligible populations
effectively and make optimal use of Federal resources. We look
to accomplish this by focusing on three principles, to improve
customer service for our partners and participants, to protect
and enhance integrity, and to ensure that FNS programs are
helping participants move toward self-sufficiency and
independence.
We all know that if infants don't start off with adequate
nutrition they have a difficult time moving into a school
environment where they can learn. If they don't have full
stomachs while they are in school they again have a difficult
time learning, and we want them to develop into productive
adults in society.
Secretary Perdue has placed a robust focus on customer
service across USDA. Given the number and diversity of FNS
customers, those who participate and those who partner with us
on our programs are at the center of that effort. Great
customer service starts with listening to and engaging with our
customers.
We heard first and foremost from our customers, the school
nutrition professionals want students back in the cafeteria as
lunch participation has continued to decline since the
standards were implemented in 2012, particularly in the paid
meal and reduced-price categories. To create school meals that
were both nutritious and appealing to the students being
served, schools needed targeted adjustments to the existing
meal standards. That is why one of Secretary Perdue's first
actions was to extend school meal flexibilities related to
milk, whole grains, and sodium. Keeping with the goals of the
underlying statute, USDA made these flexibilities permanent and
provided the certainty that schools needed as they continue to
implement the nutrition standards.
We also heard that education and training standards for
nutrition professionals that USDA implemented under the last
reauthorization put strain on small and rural school districts.
Knowing this, we revised those rules to allow these districts
more flexibility in the hiring of the individuals who run their
school nutrition programs.
Let me turn to the President's budget request for Fiscal
Year 2020, which fully funds the child nutrition programs,
including school meals, the Child and Adult Care Food Program,
the Summer Food Service Program, and the Special Milk Program,
so that every child has access to nutritious meals in schools,
childcare centers, daycare homes, and other facilities
throughout the school year, and when school is not in session.
The request also fully funds WIC to ensure that all women,
infants, and children who are eligible and wish to participate
may do so. As you may be aware, birth rates are declining,
particularly among women under the age of 30. This has
contributed in declines in the WIC population for a number of
years, but we estimate that participation will average about
6.6 million women and infants and children for Fiscal Year
2020, about the same number as participated last year.
The President's budget request also makes targeted
proposals to improve program integrity and customer service in
the school meals programs. Let me highlight a few. We propose
stronger income eligibility verification to focus on those
applications that are more prone for risk for error. Our
research-based approach supports operators and strategies to
achieve greater accuracy in serving school meals to eligible
children. We heard from States that they wanted to ensure the
integrity of their program was strong, so the budget requests a
$20 million increase, for a total of $25 million, in grants to
States to modernize systems and improve program operations
oversight and overall program integrity. General State
administrative grants are capped and with competing demands for
staff and activities related to administrative reviews, States
are often not able to prioritize technology upgrades.
In regards to reauthorization, I know you have a large and
important task ahead of you. Because of their scope and
significance to families and communities across America,
Congress has a long history of constructive bipartisan action
to strengthen them. I am pleased to join you in that spirit
today when we work together to move these programs forward.
Let me close by saying that I know the painstaking effort
required to develop legislation of this size and complexity,
and we at the Food and Nutrition Service stand ready to provide
any support and technical assistance that you may need as you
deliberate these important matters.
I am happy to answer any questions that you may have.
[The statement of Mr. Lipps follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman BONAMICI. Thank you for your testimony.
Before we begin questions, I want to remind members who
wish to insert a written statement into the record, they may do
so by submitting them to the committee clerk electronically in
Microsoft Word format by 5 p.m. on June 18, 2019.
Under committee rule 8a, we will now question the witness
under the 5 minute rule. As chair, I will go first. We will
then alternate between the parties.
I now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Mr. Lipps, as I mentioned in my opening statement, I am
concerned about the Department's Fiscal Year 2020 budget
proposal concerning a change to the community eligibility
provision that would prevent schools from using an area average
to determine their identified student percentage, or ISP. This
is important to the schools in the district I represent. In
fact, I just had lunch with some students last week and spoke
with the people administering the program. This is an important
issue for them. If enacted, each individual school would need
to meet the 40 percent ISP threshold, resulting in thousands of
schools losing the ability to use CEP and more than a million
children losing access to free meals through this provision.
What is the Department's rationale for requesting this
policy change?
Mr. LIPPS. Chairwoman, first let me be clear that no
students are eligible for paid or free would lose eligibility
under that provision. They would have to enter through a
different application process, but they would not lose
eligibility.
The President's budget put forward a proposal that offers
an opportunity for the savings from that plan to be invested in
other areas. We know there are a lot of competing priorities in
child nutrition as you consider those, and so we put that
forward for consideration, ensuring that all of those unpaid
and free are still eligible. Schools that are above that 40
percent threshold can continue to operate, it is just not on a
district level.
Chairwoman BONAMICI. I understand, however, when I speak
with schools at home, this program reduces stigma and the
paperwork burden for schools. And districts tell us that it is
working well. It seems that is in line with the customer
service priority you recognized. I think we should give the
districts options to streamline enrollment in school meal
programs and CEP is a key part of that.
I wanted to move on to Summer EBT. In 2012 the FNS
published evaluations of Summer EBT demonstrations, which were
designed to test alternative methods of providing nutrition to
low income students during the summer. And in Oregon the
program showed a 5.2 percentage reduction in very low food
insecurity, which is the most severe form of food insecurity
among children. Yet, in reviewing applications for the round of
Summer EBT projects beginning this year, the Department chose
to discontinue funding for the program in Oregon. In fact, the
Department is only funding four State or tribal projects over
the next 3 years, compared to 10 funded last summer.
So your Department found that the Oregon Summer EBT project
reduced very low food insecurity among children. Do you agree
with that finding your Department made?
Mr. LIPPS. Yes, ma'am, that is correct.
Chairwoman BONAMICI. Well, it is interesting, if we all
agree that the Oregon Summer EBT Program reduced very low food
insecurity, why did the Department decide to end funding to
Oregon, therefore putting those children once again at risk for
food insecurity?
Mr. LIPPS. Chairwoman, that is an important question and
the Secretary and I agree with you on that very point. The
money provided for these projects is demonstration money that
was originally provided in the Appropriations Act of 2010. The
Department has found in a number of areas that very low food
insecurity in children has been reduced due to the Summer EBT
Programs. We think it is an important program that has worked
well. We have obtained that data and reported it to Congress.
Our interest is moving on to researching areas of new
information as that demonstration money is given to us to
report back to Congress on things that can work well, while you
continue to consider how to move forward in feeding children in
the summer.
We recognize that is a difficult question. We want to work
with you on that as we move forward. The process was
competitive this year in applications that were submitted for
what projects would be funded that can provide us new
information on how to better serve children in the summer. And
I think our interests are aligned on that front for sure.
Chairwoman BONAMICI. Well, and I appreciate that and I look
forward to continuing the conversation. It feels unacceptable
for the Department to have evidence from its own evaluations
that a program reduces severe child hunger and then
nevertheless the program is cut. So I would like to work with
you and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to address
that. If there are other priorities that are considered a head
of that, I think we need to have that conversation.
And just briefly back to community eligibility, we have had
many conversations in this committee about community
eligibility, and I understand that you said that there are
other ways for the students to access community--or the
districts to access community eligibility. However, there are
significant barriers to families and filling out applications.
Some people are unaware of it. And I am sure that there are
children who are eligible who aren't filling out the paperwork.
Also, the stigma that is attached disappears with community
eligibility. And once again, when I speak with the districts
and the school nutrition providers in Oregon, they are very,
very supportive of expanding access to community eligibility
because it does streamline the paperwork and make it easier for
the school, but also reduces that stigma. So I hope we can work
together on that as well.
I now recognize the ranking member, Mr. Comer, from
Kentucky, for 5 minutes for your questions.
Mr. COMER. Thank you for yielding.
Mr. Under Secretary, it is great to have you here today. I
know that school food personnel want to serve healthy, tasty
meals to kids. And I have spoken with several school nutrition
administrators all across the first congressional district of
Kentucky that tell me they have a challenging time wading
through the regulations to try to come up with meals that kids
like that meet the regulations on the Federal level.
So my question--my first question--how are the new
regulations on grains, sodium, and milk going to help my
constituents serve meals to those kids?
Mr. LIPPS. Congressman Comer, the flexibility given on
those three items are flexibilities that were requested
directly from the school meals professionals that serve our
kids every day. We heard that and traveled throughout the
country, the Secretary did, I did. We certainly heard it in
comments. I agree with you, school nutrition professionals
don't want to serve kids meals that aren't nutritious. That is
their goal when they show up at work every day. And they are
looking those kids in the eyes and wanting to help them make
better health decisions throughout their life. And I think they
are all committed to that. They requested some minimal
flexibilities to the standards that would allow kids to eat
those meals, to reduce the waste, and ensure that kids are
getting the nutrition that they need so that we are not sending
kids home, some to an empty cupboard who aren't eating the
meals at school. And we believe those minimal flexibilities
help accomplish that.
Mr. COMER. Great. My congressional district borders four
States and retailers who operate in more than one State often
struggle with the excessive red tape and lack of uniformity
amongst each State's WIC licensing process. In order to help
streamline this process, can FNS direct States to start with
the retailers existing SNAP licenses and only ask for
additional information beyond what a retailer has already
provided on their SNAP licenses? And if not, is there anything
Congress can do to make that happen?
Mr. LIPPS. That is a great question, Congressman. FNS
retailers are authorized at the Federal level by FNS. WIC
retailers are authorized on the State level by the WIC State
agencies. I believe that there are some statutory impediments
to us changing how that process works, so I think off line we
can engage with you on opportunities to move that forward. We
certainly hear those challenges from retailers as well. And the
important thing is we have as many retailers as possible in the
system so that the customers have access to that.
Mr. COMER. Absolutely. And we want to work with you on that
because unfortunately in this environment many of our rural
communities are having less food retailers now, grocery
retailers, and we are living in an environment where we have
more food deserts, not just in the urban areas but in the rural
areas as well. So anything we can do to help with that, to make
that process easier, we want to do that on this committee. So
we look forward to working with you on that.
My next question, in the past there have been issues with
certain items that are part of a WIC prescription not being
available during times of disaster due to production or
logistical challenges. While some States are quick to provide
substitutions, some may be slower to act, causing WIC
participants to be unable to access items on their
prescription. Does USDA have the authority it needs to provide
States with flexibility to authorize item substitution at
authorized merchants during times of disaster?
Mr. LIPPS. Congressman, I believe that we do. We will take
a deeper look at that. As you noted, we have given that
flexibility to a number of States in the recent disasters that
we have had just since I have been at the Food and Nutrition
Service. It sounds like we may need to do some work with some
of the States to ensure that their processes are in place to
get that communication more quickly accomplished. We do our
best to turn those around very quickly at FNS.
Mr. COMER. Great.
Let me get one more question in here. When the idea of
reauthorization of child nutrition laws comes up I hear a lot
about streamlining applications, especially for the summer. Can
you tell me why streamlining is necessary and if there is
anything the agency can do to help improve this effort and what
must be legislated?
Mr. LIPPS. Yes, sir. We have taken a number of actions at
FNS in recent years to start streamlining applications. There
are a lot of programs that operate to feed kids throughout the
year, we have 15 programs at FNS, and a lot of those are for
summer. And we hear from operators on the ground very often
about the difficulty from moving, for example, from a CACFP At
Risk operator to a Summer Food Service Program operator. And so
the agency has taken actions to streamline some of those
operations. I think there is some more that can be done that
would require legislative action, and we would be happy to
engage with you on those.
Mr. COMER. Great.
Thank you, Mr. Under Secretary.
Madam Chair, I yield back.
Mr. LIPPS. Thank you.
Chairwoman BONAMICI. Thank you. I now recognize
Representative Fudge from Ohio for 5 minutes for your
questions.
Ms. FUDGE. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you,
Mr. Lipps, for being here.
Madam chair, I do have a shadow with me today who is a part
of the National Foster Youth Institute's shadow day, Nadia
Goful.
Thank you for being here today.
Ms. BONAMICI. Welcome.
Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Lipps, hunger is very, very real in the
State of Ohio, as it is in the rest of this Nation. Ohio has
been ranked ninth worst for low food security from 2015 to
2017. You oversee the administration of SNAP, is that correct?
Mr. LIPPS. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. FUDGE. This also includes how you deal with ABAWDs, is
that correct?
Mr. LIPPS. That is correct.
Ms. FUDGE. Okay. It is my understanding that there is a
recent proposal for a rule that would limit access to SNAP
benefits by ABAWDs, which may affect more than 700,000 persons.
Now, let me just say--and I have said it before--it is
absolutely dishonest and immoral for anyone to suggest that
poor people do not want to work. I assure you, people want a
hand up, they don't want a hand out. And it is insulting to
suggest otherwise. And so clearly I have a real problem with
how we have handled this particular population.
Now, you have given us a lot of data today, and I have
asked repeatedly to your Department to give me data on who
ABAWDs are. We have no idea who they are because you don't
collect the data. You have the authority to do it, why do you
not do it?
Mr. LIPPS. Congresswoman, the only data that FNS has is
that is collected through the quality control process, which is
data collected at enrollment and certification for those
recipients. Congress has over time discouraged us from
requiring recipients to report more information for the--
Ms. FUDGE. That is not my question, sir. You have the
authority to do it. Why do you not?
Mr. LIPPS. Congress has discouraged us over time from
collecting more information.
Ms. FUDGE. We have not said you cannot.
Mr. LIPPS. Over time Congress has discouraged that. We
don't collect that at the Federal level. What we do know about
ABAWDs is the definition of ABAWDs that Congress put in statute
for that statutory requirement on them is that they are between
the ages of 18 and 49, they don't have dependents in the
household, they are meant to--
Ms. FUDGE. It doesn't tell us if they are veterans, it
doesn't tell us if they are mentally ill, it doesn't tell if
they are homeless, if they are sick. And even your secretary,
Secretary Perdue, indicated that ABAWD definition needed some
fine tuning. Are you at least trying to fine tune it?
Mr. LIPPS. I think the definition is clear, Congresswoman.
I would be happy to talk you through what we know about that.
Ms. FUDGE. I know what you know about it. So my position
then, since you choose not to collect the data, is that you
want to operate in the dark purposely, operate in the dark and
punish people and you don't even know who they are.
I think it is really a shame that we would treat people who
we don't even know, make them believe that we think that they
are lazy, make them believe that we think that they are not
worthy or deserving of the benefits that this government should
be able to give them.
Let me move on. I want to talk a little bit about
categorical eligibility in SNAP. Now, you talked about
flexibility and I know that Republicans in particular are very,
very big on States' rights and the flexibility of States. So
why would you take away the flexibility of States as it relates
to categorical eligibility?
Mr. LIPPS. Congresswoman, let me comment on your previous
statement. It is the State's job to know these recipients and
they are in fact required to get to know--
Ms. FUDGE. Please answer my question. I have a limited
time.
Mr. LIPPS [continuing]. those recipients and to assess
them. And the agency has done a lot of work to make that
happen.
Ms. FUDGE. But you don't have the information and you are
making the decision. So could you just answer the second
question?
Mr. LIPPS. The State is required to do those things. We
have regulations that required in a memo--
Ms. FUDGE. You don't have--they are not making the
decisions, sir. Could you just answer my question?
Mr. LIPPS. They are making a decision on who that
requirement applies to. And I would be happy to share with you
the information on that.
Ms. FUDGE. Could you just answer my question.
Mr. LIPPS. Yes, ma'am. Remind me of your question on
categorical eligibility.
Ms. FUDGE. Why do you want to take away the flexibility
from the States by the rule that you are proposing to change
cat el?
Mr. LIPPS. Congresswoman, balancing how an individual
enters a program and the integrity required with that and
ensuring that the program benefits go to the right people is
always a difficult call. And we want to make sure that the
program has the utmost integrity on that front. Some people are
currently being qualified for the SNAP program by receiving a
brochure from another program. I don't think any of us think
that is the integrity that this program needs to have. And the
rule that is in our regulatory agenda on broad based
categorical eligibility, we do believe will be intended to
address that problem.
Ms. FUDGE. So in some instances you trust the States, and
in others you don't?
Mr. LIPPS. It is our job to set guidelines to ensure that
integrity is carried throughout the program and that recipients
across the States are treated fairly.
Ms. FUDGE. But the fact is you trust them in some things
and you don't in others. You don't trust them in feeding hungry
children.
Mr. LIPPS. It is--
Ms. FUDGE. You don't trust them in feeding sick or elderly.
Mr. LIPPS. That is not--
Ms. FUDGE. That is a place you don't trust--
Mr. LIPPS. That is not accurate, Congresswoman.
Ms. FUDGE. That is the choice you have just made.
Mr. LIPPS. It is our job to ensure the integrity throughout
the program.
Ms. FUDGE. I yield back.
Sir, my time is done and I yield back, madam chair.
Thank you.
Chairwoman BONAMICI. I now recognize Representative
Stefanik from New York for 5 minutes for your questions.
Ms. STEFANIK. Thank you, Chairwoman, and thank you, Mr.
Lipps, for being here today.
I represent New York's 21st district, a very rural part of
the Northeast, and frankly the East Coast. And in my district,
as we have heard many other members and you testify, it is
important to recognize that children are not just in need
during the school year, but also during the summer months. And
that is a vital component of child nutrition services. We know
that the program has a participation rate of below 20 percent
and the number of meals served during the summer has been
decreasing in recent years.
What can we do to strengthen this program and help children
gain access to food during the summer months?
I would specifically also like to hear your thoughts on
rural regions, because there are transportation challenges in a
district like mine, that I have heard first hand from families.
You talked a bit about streamlining operations, but I would
love to hear more ideas about how we can strengthen the program
during the summer months.
Mr. LIPPS. Sure. Thanks for that question, Congresswoman.
I think everybody in this room agrees that is a very
important question and a difficult one that we need to work
together to solve.
FNS has been testing methods to feed children in the summer
for a number of years. The authority was given in 2010 that I
talked to one of your colleagues about earlier. We have learned
a lot from that about how we can help children be fed in the
summer through summer EBT. The Summer Food Service Program is
great, but is generally provided at congregate feeding sites.
That is often a situation both in urban and rural areas, but
certainly I understand from a rural area the transportation
issues involved in that. So streamlining is part of that, but
that doesn't get children to the meal site, that doesn't get
food to the children.
We have tested a number of methods that we do know work. We
continue to test additional methods. And we would be happy to
talk through all of those with you off line, certainly as you
all potentially consider child nutrition reauthorization. We
think this is one of the most important questions.
Ms. STEFANIK. What are some of those methods that you have
found to be effective based upon the tests?
Mr. LIPPS. Sure. We have tested varying levels of benefits
in the Summer EBT Program, which is where additional dollars
are provided, particularly on the SNAP cards, for families to
have additional money to buy food in the summertime. We have
shown a $30.00 per month level that very low food insecurity in
children has decreased. And that is the measure of the worst
hunger for children in this country. So we think that is a very
important measurement. We have shown in some instances that
children who were provided allocations of actual food has
improved their eating habits in the summer because they are
given nutritious food to eat. Certainly anyone who shows up to
a summer feeding site is having access to food in the summer.
So all of those are working.
How we expand that on a level that works for all the
children across this country continues to be a difficult
question, but one I think we can move forward in addressing
together.
Ms. STEFANIK. And on the rural piece in particular, again,
this is not a one size fits all when you are dealing with
differences in, you know, just rural versus suburban and urban
communities in New York State. Again, my district, I have 194
towns and villages. It is very rural. I have the largest
counties in the State. So the transportation piece is critical.
What other innovative concepts have you tested specifically
for providing support during the summer months in rural
communities?
Mr. LIPPS. Most of the testing in rural communities has
been through summer EBT. We are working on some new
opportunities now that we can brief you on, but we don't have
data on that at this time.
Ms. STEFANIK. Okay. I would love to work with the
Department to identify what those innovative solutions are for
rural communities. My district is a great example of a district
that is in need and that is quite rural. So let us work
together on that.
And with that, I yield back.
Mr. LIPPS. Thank you.
Chairwoman BONAMICI. Thank you.
I now recognize Representative Dr. Schrier from Washington
for 5 minutes for your questions.
Dr. SCHRIER. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Lipps, thank you for being here today.
Mr. LIPPS. Good morning.
Dr. SCHRIER. I am Dr. Schrier, I am a pediatrician, and so
I do have this focus on children's nutrition and not just
feeding--
Mr. LIPPS. Sure.
Dr. SCHRIER [continuing]. but really making sure that what
they get gives them good nutrition. So I am concerned about the
rolling back of a lot of the targets, for example, the sodium
reduction target. And I recognize, of course, that most
children do not have high blood pressure and this may not have
an immediate impact, but over time what we are doing really is
establishing what their palates are. And so if we give kids
like a salt tooth or a sweet tooth, that lasts forever and will
affect their ultimate outcomes. So the sodium standard
reduction, the standards for whole grains and relaxing those
standards, and also the equivalency of sugar sweetened milk
with other milk that I would argue is also not good for
children's health in the long run.
And so there are reporting standards as well so that we
know what schools are doing and who is complying. And it seems
that we are not getting that information anymore. That the 2010
Healthy Hunger Free Kids Act provided an additional $.06 per
meal in reimbursement for schools that were meeting updated
standards. And that is a good way for us to track how many
schools are meeting it. In 2016 about 90 percent were.
And I was wondering, is the USDA still collecting this
data?
Mr. LIPPS. Dr. Schrier, we are not collecting that specific
information. Let me tell you a few facts that we do know. We
have a school nutrition and meal cost study that we conduct on
a regular basis, probably not as often as any of us would like.
What that does show is that students are wasting a quarter of
their calories and nutrients in that program. That at the time
of that study 30 percent of schools were not meeting sodium
target 1, and even with that we were having that level of
waste, 83 percent of schools were not meeting the whole grain
standard, and milk consumption had reduced by almost 10
percent.
And on each of those three issues, I do want to be clear,
people talk about rolling back and it makes the headlines a
lot, Congress had provided flexibility on all three of these
issues for a number of years in the annual appropriations
process. Schools said to us, we need permanency so we can order
their large quantities of food years out and plan their meals a
year out. And this rule simply provided them permanency on
those issues, which I do think around the edges on this is, as
we talked about earlier with Mr. Comer, the school nutrition
professionals, I think you would agree, really want to provide
these kids nutritious meals, but they want to make sure that
they are eating the food that they have.
Dr. SCHRIER. I love that you brought that up, because we
have heard in this committee wildly different statistics on
this, and we even had a whole discussion--we had dietitians in
here who specialize in crafting good tasting meals for kids
that meet all of the requirements before they were rolled back,
and they do not report these kinds of levels of waste. They
report that the kids are eating the food and enjoying the food.
And so we may want to have a further discussion down the line
about how to make sure that dietitians are creating these meals
and not just food service organizations that just drop off food
and put it in the microwave.
Mr. LIPPS. I agree, Dr. Schrier. It is not an easy
question.
I will say anecdotally I have gone to schools who have
chefs on board who create wonderful meals that I enjoy and I
sit down at the table with those kids and the kids who brought
their lunch from home. And in one particular instance it was
peanut butter and crackers and some--those fruit chewies--I
cannot remember what they are called--and they are trading
football cards for the food that he brought in his lunch when
there is wonderful food on the table. So it is a lot deeper
question than just these school meal standards.
I do think we want to give some deference to the folks who
are serving them and looking them in the eye every day.
Dr. SCHRIER. And I am going to just respond to that because
I completely understand what you are saying there, but I might
take that in a little bit different direction because I have a
10-year-old, so I know what we put in his lunch. I also see
what his friends' parents put in their lunches, and they do
sound a lot like that, a peanut butter sandwich without the
crust and cookies and chips.
Mr. LIPPS. I have that discussion with my 9-year-old every
morning.
Dr. SCHRIER. We don't discuss, we just give.
Mr. LIPPS. It is important to talk them through why they
are eating what they are eating.
Dr. SCHRIER. That has been well established. But I wanted
to talk with you--maybe in the future we could talk about
whether we could provide good tasting chef/dietitian inspired
meals that meet these requirements for all students, because
they are all going to have future lives and I would love to
create that palate in all of our kids. And, frankly, when it
comes to a contrast between what school nutrition provides and
needs, let us open that up for further discussion.
Mr. LIPPS. Yes, we would be happy to engage with you. Thank
you.
Dr. SCHRIER. Thank you.
Chairwoman BONAMICI. Thank you.
I now recognize the ranking member of the full committee,
Dr. Foxx from North Carolina for 5 minutes for your questions.
Mrs. FOXX. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And, Dr. Schrier,
your child probably appreciates the fact that you prepare the
lunch and don't put the child in the school food service.
Mr. Lipps, thank you for joining us today. In your
testimony you discussed some efforts your office has made to
improve integrity in the programs you operate. I appreciate
hearing your efforts on this important issue. However, GAO has
just completed a new report that notes the high rate of
improper payments can suggest programs are inherently
vulnerable to fraud. The report goes on to note that USDA has
not established a process to assess risk and that existing
efforts to assess the risk do not comprehensively consider
fraud risks.
It seems from the write up of the agency's oral comments on
the report the agency believes it does not have risk
assessments in place. Your testimony notes that you have
switched to a risk based approach.
So can you tell us what specifically the agency is doing in
this capacity. And when you say ``more can be done'', can you
discuss how that addresses what the GAO raised?
Mr. LIPPS. Chairwoman Foxx, thanks for that question. And
as you know, that report is relatively new and we haven't had
an opportunity to put out our full response on that yet.
I do want to clarify one point. The agency believes that it
does have a risk assessment in place. It does not have the
comprehensive risk assessment in place that GAO recommends for
all Federal agencies, and we agreed with them that can be
beneficial. There is no objection to increasing integrity in
any of our programs at FNS, and we work on that every day. So
we believe that we have good measures in place, but we are
always happy to improve those, and we will be doing that moving
forward.
We think the verification proposal that we have in the
budget on school meals is an important part of that. We put out
an online school meals application that helps improve integrity
in school meals and a verification toolkit that we provide the
State agencies and schools to better administer that program as
we move forward.
Mrs. FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Lipps.
Representative Bonamici asked you about the proposal to
require each individual school to certify that they are
eligible to participate in the community eligibility provision
or CEP. Can you discuss how the budget is developed to maximize
helping hungry students throughout the year and across
programs? Further, can you State again whether that change will
result in children eligible for reduced price or free lunch
losing access to the program?
Mr. LIPPS. Sure. Chairwoman Foxx, the eligibility criteria
for this program are set in statute and this program does not
change that. So children who are eligible under the guidelines
provided in statute for this program will continue to be
eligible. They will not be eligible through CEP, but through
the general application process.
And I will, as you request, repeat that proposal is put
forward as an opportunity to target free and reduced priced
meals to those kids in need of free and reduced price meals.
And those of us who can afford to pay for our child's own
meals, the taxpayer dollars that were previously going for
that, you all can choose to enter into these other programs,
such as important things we have been talking about on the
summer program.
Mrs. FOXX. Thank you.
Madam Chairwoman, I would like to submit this GAO report
titled ``USDA Has Reported Taking Some Steps to Reduce Improper
Payments, But Should Comprehensively Assess Fraud Risk'' for
the record.
Chairwoman BONAMICI. Without objection.
Mrs. FOXX. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
I want to say that I eat lunch in every cafeteria I can eat
in when I have the opportunity to do so and I always go into
the cafeterias and thank the school food service for the work
that they do in helping to prepare good meals for the students.
These are generally people who don't make a lot of money, are
very devoted to what they do, are very devoted to serving the
students, and work hard at complying with the myriad of rules
and regulations that we give to them. And I want to pat them on
the back every time I am in a school and always do my utmost to
try to eat a lunch there to show my support.
So thank you for what USDA is doing.
We must do better in terms of fraud and abuse so that the
truly needy students get the food that they need.
Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman.
Mr. LIPPS. Thank you.
Chairwoman BONAMICI. I now recognize Representative Hayes
from Connecticut for 5 minutes for your questions.
Ms. HAYES. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Mr.
Lipps, for being here today.
I am scribbling so many things on this paper because, as
usual, I hear many racist, wrong, and uninformed comments about
what this looks like on the ground. Children don't choose to be
recipients of school lunch programs--free school lunch
programs.
Some other things that I have heard that I want to address
really quickly, community eligibility, talking about wading
through regulations, all this conversation surrounding meals
that kids like or don't like, the administrative costs, the
paperwork, school nutrition professionals don't want to serve
kids meals they don't like, they have to look into the faces of
kids as they are giving them meals that they don't like. I can
tell you what school personnel don't like--over here--I can
tell you what school personnel don't like having been a teacher
for 15 years, it is hungry children. Hungry kids don't learn.
Mr. LIPPS. We all agree with that.
Ms. HAYES. So it is not about--this isn't this idea of the
regulation, the paperwork, or what kids choose or like, kids
come to school hungry. They like to eat, they like to be fed.
So I want you to just consider that as you move forward. It is
not just--
Mr. LIPPS. Congresswoman, I will say that I have been to
schools--
Ms. HAYES. That wasn't a question. That wasn't a question.
Mr. LIPPS [continuing]. and sit down with those kids and--
Ms. HAYES. That wasn't a question.
Mr. LIPPS [continuing]. watch them not eat those meals.
Ms. HAYES. I am reclaiming my time, madam chair.
Mr. LIPPS. And that deeply bothers me.
Ms. HAYES. That wasn't a question. I have 5 minutes and I
have several questions I want to get through.
Mr. LIPPS. Thank you.
Ms. HAYES. I was just making a statement.
So when we talk about the economic impact, last week your
Department's own Economic Research Service published a
comprehensive study including that when families redeem
nutrition assistance or SNAP benefits local retailers are
supported and job growth is boosted. The study found that for
every $10,000 of additional SNAP spending employment in non
metro areas increased by nearly half a percent.
This research gives confirmation from your Department of
what multiple independent high quality studies show, that SNAP
benefits support and create jobs in our economy. Therefore, how
can you justify the administration's attempt to cut SNAP when
these proposals would not only take away food but also reduce
employment?
Mr. LIPPS. Congresswoman, I do want to address your
previous accusations.
Ms. HAYES. I don't have time. I'm so sorry, but I don't
have time for you to--
Mr. LIPPS. I will tell you that I do not like sitting down
at a table with kids who are hungry and watching them not--
Ms. HAYES. With all due respect, Deputy Secretary Lipps, I
don't have time. I only have 5 minutes and I would like this--
these are the questions that I would like an answer to.
Mr. LIPPS. Well, I just wanted to clarify the point that I
don't like to watch hungry kids not eat their meals.
With regard to your question, there is no doubt that when
tax dollars are infused into a local economy that it helps
local businesses. The question in these programs is are we
feeding people, are we helping hungry people eat. And that is
the measure that we have. There are a lot of ways to infuse
money in local economies, and you all make those decisions
every day in your policymaking. My job is to focus on helping
ensure that hungry people have access to food and if that helps
benefit a local economy, we are glad to have that as a side
benefit.
Ms. HAYES. Thank you.
Mr. Lipps, do you know how many families will be affected
by this proposed $1.7 billion cut to the SNAP program?
Mr. LIPPS. Which cut are you talking about, Congresswoman?
Ms. HAYES. That was in the President's Fiscal Year 2020
budget. The cuts to the SNAP program.
Mr. LIPPS. Are you talking about the ABAWD proposal?
Ms. HAYES. Cuts to nutrition programs overall.
Mr. LIPPS. Cuts to nutrition programs in general? There are
different numbers on different proposals. I am not sure which
ones specifically you are addressing.
Ms. HAYES. Do you--all of them.
Mr. LIPPS. Well, we have some proposals that don't reduce
program participation at all. If they provide benefits in
different ways--
Ms. HAYES. 800,000.
Mr. LIPPS. That is with--
Ms. HAYES. 800,000 people will be affected--
Mr. LIPPS. I think that is a number referring--
Ms. HAYES [continuing]. by the cuts to these programs.
Mr. LIPPS [continuing]. just to the ABAWD rule for people
who do not--
Ms. HAYES. 800,000.
Mr. LIPPS [continuing]. participate in an education
activity.
Ms. HAYES. In your opening you said great customer service
starts with listening to customers, to understanding their
requirements, their challenges, and the choices available to
address them within the existing program authorities. Can I ask
you, were any of your--I am moving to a different topic--were
any of your WIC staff consulted at FNS headquarters when you
had the decision to realign the regions?
Mr. LIPPS. Absolutely.
Ms. HAYES. They were? Because this committee learned that--
in a recent call with the committee staff, staff acknowledged
that one of the problems this proposal has presented is around
WIC funding that flows through FNS regions. On the call your
staff indicated that no action would be taken on the
realignment before the WIC funding issue had been addressed.
However, at the time of the call, the USDA had already
announced the realignment with the impacted States and tribes.
So is there communication between your staff and the
policies that are coming out of your administration?
Mr. LIPPS. Congresswoman, I would be happy to talk to you
about that at length. The facts that you have are not accurate.
We are in a phase of meeting with all of our customers at this
time because customer service is at the top of the list. My
regional administrator colleagues are currently out meeting
with all of our operators who run this program. And after the
two regional administrators who were exchanging meet, their
staff at lower levels are meetings to ensure that everyone's
concerns are offered.
And I want to be clear that this was not a proposal that I
brought forward, it is a proposal that staff worked out to
ensure--we have regions with nine State agencies and 39 tribal
organizations and regions with five State agencies and 20 ITOs.
They cannot equally serve their constituents in that way. So
our regional staff brought this proposal to me and said let us
balance this workload so we can better serve our customers.
It is a great idea. There are some issues that need to be
worked out, and we will get them all worked out before we move
forward. That is how we operate at FNS.
Ms. HAYES. I look forward to that. Madam Chair, I yield
back.
Mr. LIPPS. Thank you.
Chairwoman BONAMICI. Thank you.
I now recognize Representative Thompson from Pennsylvania
for 5 minutes for your questions.
Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Secretary Lipps--
Mr. LIPPS. Good morning.
Mr. THOMPSON [continuing]. thank you for your service,
thank you for your work in this area, thank you for your work
of doing our best to provide poor hungry families with ultimate
food security, and ultimate food security comes through a job.
And there are more than 7 million jobs that are open and
available throughout this great country today. And we do have a
skills gap. We know that. We have addressed--we have worked
hard on this committee to address that skills gap. And, quite
frankly, within the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance
Program, I appreciate your work and the work of Secretary
Perdue to help those folks who are able-bodied with--which is a
definition that comes with broad exemptions for small kids and
different things, age ranges, very definitive exclusions, but
people who are able-bodied to be able to get access to get that
training that leads to food security.
The SNAP program--to defend SNAP, I mean it provides--to
someone who chaired the nutrition committee and the agriculture
committee for 2 years, we know what that provides is very
important, but it is very limited. And if you want ultimate
food security, that really comes through the effort and the
work that you all are doing.
I don't appreciate when my colleagues extract certain
statistics and try to demonize, you know, what is the right
thing to do to help people and to do things for--we are not
doing things--you are not doing things to people, but you are
doing things for people.
My question though is not on the SNAP program, it is the--I
want to thank you for the Department's work on last year's
rulemaking to reinstate the 1 percent flavored milk as an
option in our schools that certainly will be a helpful move to
increase milk consumption in our schools. I have seen it
already as I have visited schools and been able to enjoy a
school lunch with a table full of kids. I don't know if they
enjoyed me there as much as I enjoyed being there, and to enjoy
having 1 percent chocolate milk actually. I know the kids
appreciate that. And then with the goal of not losing another
generation of milk drinkers, I am hopeful we will be able to
move further. The next step is to allow our schools the option
to serve whole milk. We are talking about the difference
between 1 percent milk fat and 3.5 percent milk fat. And on all
the science and the data--and we do have someone--
unfortunately, some associations have not kept up with--I don't
think with science, but the difference there in the nutritional
value, the health values, are just significant. We know so much
more than the bad decision was made in 2010 to demonize milk
fat. So the next step really is to allow schools the option to
serve up the option--you know, I hope we are not dictating--to
serve whole milk, as my legislation H.R. 832 does.
Would you be in favor of giving schools the flexibility to
offer these varieties as well?
Mr. LIPPS. Congressman, first let me thank you for your
previous comments. I think you know that our intentions are
good with regard to our SNAP policies, and I appreciate your
comments on that front.
With regard to your question on whole milk, we would like
to engage with you on that front. I understand that most
Americans are buying whole or 2 percent milk at the grocery
store. And as I stated earlier, what we do know from our school
nutrition and meal cost study is that milk consumption has
decreased 10 percent over those years.
And when you talk about the nutrients that are provided in
that milk as part of this meal pattern, if kids aren't drinking
that, that is a problem, right, there is a problem on both ends
and we have to recognize that.
So we want the meal pattern to be based on science and the
dietary guidelines advisory committee is looking at some of
these questions now. And we think they are important questions
that you raise and we would love to engage with you on that.
Mr. THOMPSON. Have the studies identified what the
alternative beverages are? I was in a dairy roundtable
yesterday in my State Capitol in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, and
there was a school dietician there and she reported to me--you
know, she gave me a specific brand, I won't name that, but it
was a high sugar, high caffeine is her observation of what is
being consumed by these kids. That is what they are opting to
do. They haven't had a great milk experience for the most part
since 2010 when we--when there was legislation--when the last
time school nutrition standards were passed. It was a bill I
voted against, by the way. And so I don't know if we are
finding--identifying what are the alternative beverages that
are being utilized with--you know, you said at least a 10
percent decrease in milk consumption. They are drinking
something.
Mr. LIPPS. Well, I can assure you, Congressman, that they
are not purchasing those high sugar, high caffeine beverages in
schools, per our regulations, but there is no doubt that kids
are bringing those from home.
Mr. THOMPSON. Not even out of vending machines?
Mr. LIPPS. They are buying them outside. No, sir. They are
not allowed as part of the competitive foods. But, you know,
the unfortunate situation is that all of these children don't
have the benefit of having parents with the ability to train
them at a young age, like Dr. Schrier. And so we have to work
together to do the best we can for all of America's children.
Mr. THOMPSON. All right. Thanks, Secretary.
Chairwoman BONAMICI. Thank you.
I now recognize Representative Lee from Nevada for 5
minutes for your questions.
Ms. LEE. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Secretary
Lipps.
Mr. LIPPS. Good morning.
Ms. LEE. Before coming to Congress I had the opportunity to
work with children in Nevada's K-12 system through many
nonprofit organizations, including many students whose primary
meal actually came from school.
I represent Clark County, Nevada, the fifth largest school
district in the country where almost two out of three children
qualify for free and reduced lunch. So I certainly appreciate
how important it is that the calories our children consume pack
as much nutritional punch as possible.
And one of my primary concerns is the threshold or amount
of certain ingredients being served in school breakfast and
lunches. For instance, added sugars contribute no essential
nutrients, are often hidden in juices, breads, snacks that
schools serve to students. Many children rely on these meals as
their primary source of nutrition and it is our responsibility
that they are getting the nutrition they need during their most
vulnerable years to set them up for a healthy and successful
life.
Sugar consumption is a major cause of obesity and many
chronic diseases, such as diabetes. Current research
demonstrates that childhood obesity has reached epidemic
proportions in the last 2 decades, the proportion of overweight
teens has tripled. We have also classified obesity as a
national epidemic. And schools were identified as one of the
key settings for public health strategy to address this
concern.
So I understand the need for providers to want to feed kids
the food they prefer, but when we are faced with the national
epidemic, it is incumbent upon us to set standards that
actually address that epidemic.
And in December of 2018, FNS issued a final rule rolling
back the previously established nutrition standards for school
meals on whole grains, sodium, and milk. And as part of rolling
back these standards, FNS is now allowing schools to serve milk
with unlimited added sugar and calories, which does not align
with Dietary Guidelines for Americans' recommendation to limit
added sugars to 10 percent of daily calories.
Mr. Lipps, as you know, provisions of the rule around whole
grains and sodium are now the subject of a lawsuit against the
Department because they are not in compliance with the law's
requirement that school nutrition standards align with the
current edition of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Why
did FNS issue a final rule that violates this law?
Mr. LIPPS. Congresswoman, I can't comment on active
litigation, but I would be happy to respond to your question.
First of all, with regard to the comment that you will read
a lot about us rolling back standards, Congress has provided
annual changes on this front with regard to sodium, whole
grains, and dairy in the annual appropriations process for a
number of years. One of the requests for schools early on was
for us to provide them stability on the front that Congress had
been providing and that is what this rule did.
The School Nutrition and Meal Cost Study showed that a
quarter of the nutrients provided in school meals are wasted
every day. When you look at things like milk, that is a problem
if kids are not having those nutrients.
So I wouldn't say, as you stated, that we wanted meals kids
prefer. Certainly we do, we want them to have nutritious meals
that they will eat to ensure that they are getting that
nutrition, particularly for kids who may be going home to an
empty cupboard. I understand some may choose not to eat their
school lunch because they don't like it and they will go home
and eat whatever they want. Not all of the kids have that
option.
Thirty percent of schools were not meeting the sodium
target and 83 percent were not meeting the whole grain target.
Milk consumption is reduced by 10 percent. And this is still
with a quarter of the nutrients in the program being wasted. So
these flexibilities that were provided, which Congress had
provided through annual appropriations act, give stabilities to
the school on that front with regard to minimal flexibilities
to help produce meals that their kids will eat.
Ms. LEE. I understand that. You know, I think obviously
there is a clear balance.
Mr. LIPPS. Right. We agree.
Ms. LEE. I mean reducing, you know. But I believe that as
regulators that establishing standards that set children up for
a lifetime of health is incredibly important.
I would like you to answer this next question with a yes or
no answer. Is the Department currently considering any other
proposed regulatory changes to nutrition standards for school
meals?
Mr. LIPPS. Congresswoman, we have a regulation with regard
to school meals in our recently released regulatory agenda.
What is going to be included in that, we don't know at this
time. And I can't comment on that until the proposed rule comes
out.
Ms. LEE. Okay.
Well, I just hope that whatever FNS is considering at this
time will be in compliance with law and evidence-based so it is
in the best interest of our school children.
I want to close by stating in 2018 my home State of Nevada,
approximately 136,000 students participated in school
breakfast, and 227,000 in the school lunch program. So when we
think about food insecurity at large and hungry students who
depend on these critical programs, we need to think about how
they align with nutrition standards. Just giving kids food that
they like to eat is--you know, we need to also be thinking--
Chairwoman BONAMICI. Representative--I am sorry.
Representative, your time has expired.
Ms. LEE [continuing]. about setting them up. Thank you.
Mr. LIPPS. We agree.
Chairwoman BONAMICI. I now recognize Representative Johnson
from South Dakota for 5 minutes for your questions.
Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Lipps, you know, I think an unfortunate trend in this
country in recent decades is we are just getting further and
further away from the farm and the ranch. So we have less of an
understanding, maybe more of a tenuous understanding of how
food goes from the farm to the table. That is why I have always
liked the farm to school program. I think it teaches children--
that uses of course locally sources fruits and vegetables and
other foods to help students understand the local economy, the
local culture. It won't surprise you that I think South
Dakota--I know South Dakota is a beef and bison powerhouse and
I think South Dakota students could benefit from a deeper
understanding of the value of that beef and bison.
And so I think my first question is do you agree that this
farm to school program could better prioritize locally sourced
beef and bison?
Mr. LIPPS. Congressman, we do think it is important. Let me
comment on the farm to school program in general. I have seen
out on the ground the effect that program has on children with
regard to making healthy decisions. When kids are connected to
their food they do make healthy decisions. I think it is one of
the best programs that is moving kids' nutrition standards
forward as we look at that.
Certainly, I agree with your contention on beef in that
program. We want kids to have local connection to all of their
food.
Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I am glad we are on the same page today.
I am introducing the Farm and Ranch to School bill, which would
allow for a greater portion of that budget to be used on
locally sourced beef, bison, and other meats. I think that
would be really good moving forward.
What I want to do is shift now though to a conversation
about SNAP and ABAWDS, and I am going to lay out three things
that I believe and I want you to listen and see where maybe you
might disagree with me.
First off, we should be clear that it is the law of the
land in my understanding since the 1996 Welfare Act that able-
bodied SNAP recipients should work. That is the law of the
land. My understanding is that your proposed ABAWD rule doesn't
change that, but rather attempts to close a loophole to better
align USDA rules with congressional intent. That is my first
understanding.
My second understanding is just that I know I am not lazy.
I know I grew up as a poor boy in South Dakota, I know my life
is better because I was held accountable by parents, by
teachers, by the laws and regulations and rules of a society.
And I don't think that holding people accountable is
punishment. I think it is a hallmark of a responsible society.
That is my second understanding.
My third understanding flows from the fact that it has been
alleged today at this hearing that you USDA is working to
punish people, these able-bodied SNAP recipients, because you
want able-bodied people to work. And so I would just say this,
I do not think that holding people accountable is punishment.
And I do not think that work is punishment. I think that work
is opportunity. And I think holding people accountable through
the value of work is one way that we can improve people's lives
in a fundamentally critical way.
Those are the three things that I understand to be true,
Mr. Lipps. In what ways am I in error?
Mr. LIPPS. Congressman, I agree with you on each of those
points. I will talk about each of them specifically.
Congress put the work requirement in the law in 1996--you
are correct. And it says--if you look at the statute it says
work requirement across the top. It is not unclear about what
it is when Congress put it in. This agency is trying to ensure
that those individuals who are defined in the statute who
Congress said should be subject to work requirement are
engaged. The law--our regulations provide that those
individuals to whom this applies have an opportunity to engage
in education towards a job through skills training. We are
working to ensure that happens. The States are obligated to
know who these people are. I can show you in our regulations
and in our memorandums how States are to bring these people in,
assess their needs, their skills, their skill gaps, and help
them to work on those.
I visited with a young lady on one of my trips who was
subject to one of these work requirements. She got a letter in
the mail and said, you know what, I decided maybe I could
change my life because I could get some new skills to get a
job, and now she is employed.
The things that you are saying are true. I believe that I
have succeeded in my career to date because my parents set
expectations for me and I met them. I understand that I didn't
have all the difficulties that some of the individuals that are
subject to this work requirement have, and we are working to
help them have the skills that they need to deal with those
each and every day.
Mr. JOHNSON. Well, Mr. Lipps, I want to thank Secretary
Perdue for the proposed rule, because I think work is
opportunity and I appreciate USDA's interest in moving your
rules closer to congressional intent.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield back.
Mr. LIPPS. Thank you.
Chairwoman BONAMICI. Thank you, Representative.
I now recognize Representative Trone from Maryland for 5
minutes for your questions.
Mr. TRONE. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, thank you,
Secretary Lipps. I would also like to recognize for shadow day
here, another youth participant over to my left, Michael
Moores. Hello. Thank you, Michael.
Mr. Lipps, I spent 15 years growing up on a farm; I
understand rural America and my district is very rural. There
is actually deeper struggles with hunger in rural areas. But
across the country only one in seven children--one in seven--
that had a free or reduced meal during the school year is
taking advantage of that during the summer nutrition program.
So I don't doubt your intentions at all, what I doubt is your
execution ability to fill that gap, because these kids are
hungry. School year, summer, they are still hungry. And our job
is to feed these kids.
So what are the top two things, quickly, that your agency
is doing to fix this gap and execute better? One in seven.
Mr. LIPPS. Congressman, the top two things are continuing
to ensure that people have the resources necessary to expand
their Summer Food Service Program and continuing to find new
and effective ways to expand the summer EBT demonstration
projects so we can ensure that you have the information you
need to provide us the resources to feed more children in the
summer.
Mr. TRONE. But that has been basically the process for the
entire time we have had this focus and we are not making any
progress. So there is an old rule, if you keep doing the same
thing, you get the same answer. I mean we need to do some
marketing to communicate and execute better to help these kids.
They are hungry.
Mr. LIPPS. Congressman, having grown up in a rural area, I
agree with your earlier comments on that. The Summer Food
Service Program through a congregate feeding requirement is not
going to serve all of those children. The money provided to
this agency through the annual appropriations process for
summer EBT is very limited. We have had great success on some
of those fronts. We are looking at new opportunities to expand
that to provide you more information, but the reality is that
we need to work together on opportunities in child nutrition
reauthorization to give the agency more resources to help
States and local sponsors feed more children.
Mr. TRONE. Okay. We have got to move past the good
intentions.
September 2018, Department of Homeland Security published a
proposed rule expanding the definition of public charge. The
rule makes it possible for folks to be disqualified from
obtaining a green card or entering the country simply because
they sought health care or they sought food assistance for
their family.
Food and Nutrition Service's stated goal is to end hunger
following the guidelines. DHS obviously does not share that
goal. What is your agency doing to push back against rules like
this from DHS?
Mr. LIPPS. Congressman, I believe that that rule is still
open as a proposed and so I am not going to comment on that
specifically.
I will say that our agency provides comments on those type
of rules to inform the process going forward. We have met with
a number of stakeholders on that front and encouraged them to
meet with our colleagues over at DHS to talk about that front.
Another important thing is I think we all need to be clear
when we talk about what this rule does, that we don't talk
about what it does not do with regard to its affect on a number
of our programs who are not touched in the proposed rule. And
we want to ensure that there is clear information to the
recipients of our programs, who you have provided in statute,
can access these programs despite that rule, have access to--
Mr. TRONE. I think that is nice, but irrelevant. You know,
what guidance did you provide DHS about this rule in the
interagency review process that it is clearly not feeding kids
that need to be fed?
Mr. LIPPS. Congressman, again, this rule does not affect
our child nutrition programs. I will say that with regard to
the rule, we did provide comment, but again that rule is still
in the open proposed phase.
Mr. TRONE. It affects their ability to get a green card or
get food assistance.
Mr. LIPPS. It does not with regard to child nutrition
programs, for which the statute provides--
Mr. TRONE. I just want to reiterate your agency's mission
is to work to end this hunger--
Mr. LIPPS. We agree with that.
Mr. TRONE [continuing]. through your programs. And I don't
know how you can justify not pushing back against rules from
other agencies that would choke your ability to pursue the
agency's mission. The rule is shameful and if you are not
pushing back that is doubly shameful. It is an abdication of
your duties. So we need your help. Kids need your help. They
are hungry and they are not getting fed.
Thank you.
Mr. LIPPS. I understand, Congressman, and again, I want to
say that rule does not affect our child nutrition programs as
proposed.
Mr. TRONE. I yield back.
Chairwoman BONAMICI. Thank you.
I now recognize the chairman of the full committee,
Chairman Scott from Virginia, for 5 minutes for your questions.
Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Madam Chair.
First I want to recognize one of the persons following us
today, Jessica Reese from Mississippi.
Thank you.
Mr. Lipps, the chair of the subcommittee asked you about
the community eligibility, and did I understand that you
mentioned that there would be savings with the change that you
are making?
Mr. LIPPS. Yes, sir.
Mr. SCOTT. And are those savings generated by fewer
children having access to free school meals?
Mr. LIPPS. It is generated by children who do not qualify
for free and reduced priced meals not getting free meals at
school.
Mr. SCOTT. Does it also include those who are eligible that
can't get through the paperwork for one reason or another?
Mr. LIPPS. Those children can still qualify to get through
the normal application process.
Mr. SCOTT. If they don't--one of the things about this
community eligibility is everybody is eligible. You don't have
to fill out the paperwork.
Mr. LIPPS. Right.
Mr. SCOTT. Many eligible students do not get access because
they don't fill out the paperwork for one reason or another.
In terms of the--I understand the Administration is
changing the way you calculate the poverty rate.
Mr. LIPPS. I think there is a proposal out on that front,
sir.
Mr. SCOTT. And I understand that since 2000 the chain CPI
has increased the poverty--would have increased the poverty
rate by 39.7 percent, but the regular CPI would be 45.7, an
increase of 6 percentage points. Does that sound about right?
Mr. LIPPS. I will leave the statisticians to that,
Congressman.
Mr. SCOTT. But there is a difference?
Mr. LIPPS. There is a difference, yes, sir.
Mr. SCOTT. Okay. The Able-Bodied Adults Without Dependents,
when they are disqualified does that affect children?
Mr. LIPPS. No, sir.
Mr. SCOTT. Say again.
Mr. LIPPS. It does not affect children. By statutory
definition it does not apply to an individual that has a child
in the home.
Mr. SCOTT. If a non-custodial parent loses food stamps and
is less able to pay child support, does that affect the
children?
Mr. LIPPS. They will continue to qualify for food stamp
benefits if they did before.
Mr. SCOTT. The non-custodial parent would be less able to
pay food stamps.
In terms of WIC, do you agree with the studies that show
participation in the WIC program is associated with reduced
rates of infant mortality and improved nutritional status for
pregnant women and post-partum women?
Mr. LIPPS. Yes, sir, we have very positive studies on that
front in WIC.
Mr. SCOTT. And maternal mortality is more than double and
the infant mortality rate is one of the worst amongst
international nations, is that right?
Mr. LIPPS. Yes, sir, I have heard that statistic.
Mr. SCOTT. And so what does WIC do to improve that
situation?
Mr. LIPPS. I think the studies show that being a part of
WIC itself helps with those situations. WIC doesn't
specifically provide services on that front, but we certainly
provide a round of service through the WIC program to ensure
that people have access to everything, that pregnant women,
mothers, and children have access to all the services that they
made need through referrals.
Mr. SCOTT. Now, what does WIC provide other than food?
Mr. LIPPS. WIC provides a number of services through
breastfeeding peer counseling, they provide referrals for
support, there is some testing that is done. We want to make
sure that mothers and children have everything they need to
exceed nutritionally in life at that point.
Mr. SCOTT. And you have studies that show that makes a
difference?
Mr. LIPPS. Yes, sir, we do.
Mr. SCOTT. In September 2018 the Department of Homeland
Security published a rule expanding the definition of public
charge. It makes it possible for people to be disqualified for
many services. Your stated goal for the Food and Nutrition
Service is to work to end hunger through administration of
Federal nutrition assistance programs for vulnerable
populations. The Homeland Security's own analysis of their rule
said that the rule, if implemented, could lead to worse health
outcomes, including increased prevalence of obesity,
malnutrition, especially for pregnant or breastfeeding women,
infants, or children, increased used of emergency rooms,
increases in uncompensated care, and reduced productivity, and
educational attainment.
Do you agree with that assessment? And what did your agency
respond when asked to comment on this proposed rule?
Mr. LIPPS. Chairman, as I stated to your colleague earlier,
that rule is still being assessed in proposed form, so I won't
comment on that specifically.
But we did provide comments on the affect on our programs
of that proposed rule.
Mr. SCOTT. Do you have evidence to show that your changes
in sodium in the school lunch program is evidence-based?
Mr. LIPPS. Yes, sir. The School Nutrition and Meal Cost
Study shows that 30 percent of the schools weren't meeting that
sodium standard, 83 percent weren't meeting the whole grains
standard, and even with that, one quarter of the nutrients
provided to that program were being wasted for failure of kids
to consume.
Mr. SCOTT. Is that because the food was not tasty or
because of the standards? We have had evidence in other
hearings that if you provide tasty food, it is not wasted. If
you provide un-tasty food, it will be wasted.
Mr. LIPPS. We agree with that. And the school nutrition
professionals tell us that these flexibilities will help them
to provide food that won't be wasted.
Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman BONAMICI. Thank you. I now recognize
Representative Sablan from the Northern Mariana Islands for 5
minutes for your questions.
Mr. SABLAN. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, for holding
today's hearing and for allowing me to sit on the dais. Good
morning--
Mr. LIPPS. Good morning.
Mr. SABLAN [continuing]. and welcome, Secretary Lipps.
I don't have--5 minutes--I have a lot of questions, but let
me ask some and ask for you to respond.
I want to know about the continued omission of the Northern
Marianas from the Department's research on school meals, meal
cost. We face unique challenges in implementing child nutrition
programs as our providers face very high food costs. As the
Northern Marianas are not included in research, like the School
Nutrition and Meal Cost Study, how does the Department ensure
that we are receiving fair and sufficient Federal
reimbursements to operate the programs?
Mr. LIPPS. Congressman Sablan, I believe that CNMI is on a
block grant with regard to school nutrition programs, which
makes that operation a little bit different. I would be happy
to engage with you on any questions that you have on that front
to help better the operation of that program.
Mr. SABLAN. Right. But if you don't have the research, the
data to show, then I don't know how you come to arrive at how
much that block grant will be. So--
Mr. LIPPS. I believe Congress provides that formula to us,
but again, we would be happy to discuss that with you further.
Mr. SABLAN. Oh, Okay. I want to ask about the school meal
reimbursement rates for the noncontiguous pacific areas. I will
ask Hawaii, American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Marianas,
what is the basis used to establish those rates? Does the
Department think that the historical basis remains valid today?
And how frequently are the rates recomputed to keep up with
changing prices and market conditions?
Mr. LIPPS. Congressman, I apologize, I don't know off hand
how often we recalculate those and what studies they are based
off of, but we will be happy to get that back to you quickly.
Mr. SABLAN. I appreciate that.
And I want to know the status of an information request
regarding whether data collected in the upcoming School
Nutrition and Meal Cost Study part II will be used to determine
reimbursement rates for all outlying areas, including the
Northern Marianas, even though it will not be one of the data
collections sites.
On April 18 the committee staff asked your office for this
information but have not yet received an answer. Are you able
to answer that question for me today?
Mr. LIPPS. I do not have an answer to that. If you have not
received an answer from our office yet you will have that
tomorrow.
Mr. SABLAN. Tomorrow?
Mr. LIPPS. Tomorrow.
Mr. SABLAN. I appreciate--
Mr. LIPPS. We will get you an answer tomorrow. I am not
aware that we received that, but you should have received an
answer by now and we will assure that you will get one soon.
Mr. SABLAN. Thank you. I appreciate that.
In my remaining time, you know, I was able--it was a
teacher actually who made me understand the connection between
student school lunch and food at home under SNAP. So I want to
ask the administration's plan for the Nutrition Assistance
Program in the Mariana Islands. We are not involved in SNAP as
you know. We get a $12 million block grant that has not changed
since 2009. I did put an extra $30 million into the 2014 farm
bill for the Marianas program. That money raised benefits to be
comparable to Guam, which has similar food costs. We have also
included more households using income eligibilities that are
closer to SNAP. But this progress can slip away.
In fact, the Marianas program is planning to start cutting
benefits and taking families out of the system beginning
October 1. Now, I just did get another $25 million in this
disaster supplemental yesterday, and we are hoping to get some
update from the Marianas and from your western regional office
about how the current economic downturn will change demands on
the system.
But what I want to know is whether the administration
thinks we should continue this way with a system that always
needs special attention, a kind of Rube Goldberg contraption.
Would it not be smarter and more administratively efficient to
just put the Marianas into SNAP?
Mr. LIPPS. Congressman, we would be happy to continue to
engage with you on that matter. I know that FNS has--over time
there are a lot of requirements that come with being SNAP
operators--
Mr. SABLAN. We have met those requirements, Mr. Secretary.
We are done with eligibility system requirement. EBT is coming
on line. The Governor has said it can meet half the
administrative cost of--you have the statutory authority to do
it, you do not have to wait for Congress, so why not just
incorporate the Northern Marianas into SNAP? Would that not be
easier all around?
Mr. LIPPS. Congressman, I don't know if it would be easier.
I am not sure that you or I would agree that is the right
question. But I do think both of us can continue to work
together to make sure that we are serving the people of CNMI in
the best way that we can.
Mr. SABLAN. Mr. Secretary, I have been trying to get there
since 2009. What is it now, 2019?
Mr. LIPPS. 2019.
Mr. SABLAN. Yes, 10 years. So on working together, can we
work a little faster maybe please?
Mr. LIPPS. I would be happy to meet with you as often as
you would prefer, sir.
Mr. SABLAN. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
And, Madam Chair, I yield my time back.
Chairwoman BONAMICI. Thank you.
I now recognize Representative Grothman from Wisconsin for
5 minutes for your questions.
Mr. GROTHMAN. Thanks. A couple of questions. And, first of
all, maybe we have already gone over some of these. I was in
another hearing.
The percentage of students who are getting free or reduced
lunch, say in the most recent year available compared to say 10
years ago, do you have information on that?
Mr. LIPPS. I know that number. I do have that number handy,
if you can hold. The percent getting free and reduced in 2011
was 66 percent and now that is 74 percent as of 2018.
Mr. GROTHMAN. Seventy-four percent of what?
Mr. LIPPS. Of the students participating in school lunch
program are free and reduced meals.
Mr. GROTHMAN. Okay. Maybe that is misleading. Is that the
same thing as total students or? Could you distinguish that
between--I can't believe that 74 percent of the American
students are eligible for free--
Mr. LIPPS. Sorry. The percent of--so the school lunch
program has participation from those that receive free meals,
from those that receive reduced price meals, and from those who
have paid meals.
Mr. GROTHMAN. Okay.
Mr. LIPPS. The percent that are getting free and reduced
out of all of those is 74 percent. But that is out of all
participants. If you are asking the number of students that
participate in the program, I don't know what percentage that
is out of all American school children.
Mr. GROTHMAN. Okay. It kind of makes that number not
particularly relevant then. Do you know just raw numbers the
number of kids participating 10 years ago compared to today?
Mr. LIPPS. I don't have the numbers, sir. Actually, I do.
We had 31 million--almost 32 million participating in 2011 and
we are now down to around 30 million in 2018.
Mr. GROTHMAN. So even though the percentage--to what do you
attribute that--so the percentage of people in any school lunch
program getting free and reduced is going up, but the overall
number is dropping. I mean that seems counterintuitive. How do
you--
Mr. LIPPS. We believe the major increase in the free and
reduced price categories is through the community eligibility
provision that there has been a lot of discussion about this
morning. The reduction in those who are paying for their meals
either in full or partial is our school nutrition professionals
tell us is their ability to provide meals that are both
nutritious and kids will eat, after the Healthy Hunger-Free
Kids Act has reduced and those kids have chosen to bring their
meal or to eat off campus.
Mr. GROTHMAN. Well, this would indicate, right, that more
people are eating than bringing their own food--right?
Mr. LIPPS. Yes, sir.
Mr. GROTHMAN. Over time. So to what do you attribute that?
Mr. LIPPS. Many of the school nutrition professionals tell
us that without these flexibilities that the Secretary provided
in his recent rule, that they weren't able to provide lunches
that were both nutritious and the kids would enjoy eating.
Mr. GROTHMAN. So during the last 10 years, for whatever
reason, schools were being forced by the Federal Government to
provide meals that nobody would want--or at least many people
would not want to eat?
Mr. LIPPS. Yes, sir. Many of the schools have struggled
with that.
Mr. GROTHMAN. Okay. Could you give us just a general
percentage of school kids who are obese today compared to 30 or
40 years ago?
Mr. LIPPS. I don't have a particular number on that with
regard to school kids, Congressman, but certainly the numbers
show that obesity has increased significantly in recent years.
Mr. GROTHMAN. Okay. And kind of in line with the first
thing we said, you hear anecdotally when you talk to students
that a lot of people throw away this food. Is there any hard
evidence on that or you just have anecdotal evidence?
Mr. LIPPS. Yes, sir. The School Nutrition and Meal Cost
Study shows that a quarter of the nutrients provided to kids
and elementary kids in school meals is wasted every day. We see
that as a problem, particularly with kids who have to go home
to empty cupboards. We want to make sure that the local school
nutrition professionals serving them have the minimal
flexibility necessary to ensure they want to eat the food that
is served to them and that it is also nutritious.
Mr. GROTHMAN. What percentage of food is being thrown away?
Mr. LIPPS. A quarter of the nutrients provided to
elementary students is wasted every day.
Mr. GROTHMAN. Do you believe that? I will believe that 25
percent is thrown away. I question that people are throwing
away 25 percent of their food and that aren't being given any
food to eat at home. Is that believable?
Mr. LIPPS. Say that again. I think that the type of food
that some of these children are eating at home may not be
nutritious. And I do think some of them are going home to empty
cupboards.
I have sat with kids and watched them trade food with kids
who bring their lunch, but not choose to eat the type of things
that are served to them at lunch.
Mr. GROTHMAN. Okay. Well, it is something that we wanted to
do several years ago on this committee. So you are trying to
take steps to improve this program, which is kind of--they are
throwing away 25 percent of their food, would have to have been
described as a failure until a new administration. Is that
accurate?
Mr. LIPPS. The nutrition standards in school meals have
made great progress in ensuring that kids are eating more
nutritious foods and the program has done great work in that
way. The school nutrition professionals tell us on the ground
that there are some minimal flexibilities that they need to
ensure that they can serve kids the foods that they need, and
we are working to make sure that happens every day.
Mr. GROTHMAN. Well, thank you. The more flexibility, the
better.
Mr. LIPPS. Yes, sir.
Chairwoman BONAMICI. Thank you.
Before I recognize Representative Wild, I want to ask
unanimous consent to enter into the record the USDA's School
Nutrition and Meal Cost Study, published in April of 2019. The
study looked at all aspects of school nutrition programs before
and after implementation of the updated nutrition standards
under the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act and comparing data from
school year 2009-10 before implementation of the new standards
to school year 2014-15. The study found that overall
nutritional quality of school meals increased by over 40
percent while plate waste did not increase. Healthier food was
not associated with increased cost and students and parents
were satisfied with the meals.
I want to congratulate our school nutrition professionals
who helped make that happen, but also note that the report
found that there were higher rates of participation in schools
with lunches of higher nutritional value.
Without objection.
And I recognize Representative Wild from Pennsylvania for 5
minutes for your questions.
Ms. WILD. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Good morning, Mr. Lipps.
Mr. LIPPS. Good morning.
Ms. WILD. In the audience today is a 20-year-old young lady
named Lindy who is a product of the foster care system. And in
the brief time I have spent with her today I have learned of
the many struggles she has endured in her short life. And the
last thing she or any foster child needs is to worry about
whether they will get lunch at school.
In 2013, the USDA issued a policy memo clarifying its
interpretation of the statutory provision in the Healthy
Hunger-Free Kids Act that provided categorical eligibility for
free school meals to foster children. The policy memo reversed
the Department's previous interpretation of the statute and
narrowed it to include only those foster children who are
currently the responsibility of the State. Recently, as the
number of foster children and children in kinship care has
grown--and kinship care, of course, is children who are in the
placement of a relative--there has been a growing number of
children who have been placed with a friend or relative and
therefore not deemed to be the responsibility of the State. As
a result they are not considered to be categorically eligible
for free school meals under the Department's interpretation of
the law.
So my question to you is do you believe that the USDA
should extend categorical eligibility to this group of children
once again?
Mr. LIPPS. Congresswoman, it is an important issue. That
decision obviously took place before my arrival at the agency
and I only recently became aware of it.
Ms. WILD. Understood.
Mr. LIPPS. We have some more research to do on that point
and we will get back to you. It is certainly an important issue
that we want to engage with you on, ensuring that those
children that you are referring to have access to nutritious
meals.
Ms. WILD. Then you are probably aware that in the letter to
Chairman Scott on April 2 of this year regarding this issue,
Secretary Perdue wrote, and I quote, ``The agency is currently
examining the applicability of guardianship arrangements to the
existing authority.'' Are you familiar with that letter?
Mr. LIPPS. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. WILD. Can you provide us with an update on that review
or that examination, including a timeline of when you expect it
to be completed?
Mr. LIPPS. I don't have an update at this time,
Congresswoman, but we will keep you advised as well and
continue to engage with you on that.
Ms. WILD. Can we get some kind of more specific timeline
that you expect that this very important issue for children who
may be hungry at school, notwithstanding the fact that they are
under the care of a relative, when this issue might be
addressed?
Mr. LIPPS. We will contact you this afternoon with a date
on which we will get you more information.
Ms. WILD. All right. My office is at 1607 Longworth. We
will look forward to hearing from you. And my legislative
director is directly behind you. Dorcas, could you raise your
hand? She would be happy to take that information from you.
If the USDA's examination shows that you do not have the
statutory authority to extend categorical eligibility to
children who have been placed in these guardianship
arrangements, then Congress will need to pass legislation to
provide the statutory authority that the USDA needs to do so.
I hope at that point that you will work to promulgate the
congressional intent.
Thank you.
Mr. LIPPS. We are always happy to do so.
Ms. WILD. Thank you.
Chairwoman BONAMICI. Thank you very much.
I remind my colleagues that pursuant to committee practice,
materials for submission for the hearing record must be
submitted to the committee clerk within 14 days following the
last day of the hearing, preferably in Microsoft Word format.
The materials submitted must address the subject matter of the
hearing. Only a member of the committee or an invited witness
may submit materials for inclusion in the hearing record.
Documents are limited to 50 pages each. Documents longer
than 50 pages will be incorporated into the record via an
internet link that you must provide to the committee clerk
within the required timeframe. Please recognize that years from
now that link may no longer work.
Again I want to thank the witness for his participation
today. What we have heard is very valuable. Members of the
committee may have additional questions for you and we ask the
witness to please respond to those questions in writing. The
hearing record will be held open for 14 days to receive those
responses.
And I remind my colleagues that pursuant to committee
practice, witness questions for the hearing record must be
submitted to the majority committee staff or committee clerk
within 7 days. The questions submitted must address the subject
matter of the hearing.
And I now recognize the distinguished ranking member for
his closing statement.
Mr. COMER. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I want to thank you
again, Mr. Under Secretary, for being here today. I think it is
important to hear how the Administration is implementing these
programs. And I appreciate the chairwoman for calling this
hearing.
We discussed a lot of important topics today, one was the
need to maintain the flexibility just made permanent by the
USDA. If we want kids to benefit from the child nutrition
programs, the meals have to be something they will eat. I
believe the new rule will allow schools to plan ahead and serve
meals that kids will want to eat. Students will also have
access to milk they will want to drink, something that is
critical for their growth and development.
It is alarming to read a report that says almost 30 percent
of the milk served was discarded. And I am glad to see that
Secretary Perdue is trying to help remedy that. I am sure there
is more we can do, but this is a good step.
We also discussed the need to continue working on program
integrity. I believe USDA is doing some good work here, but it
is important to continue those efforts and work to maximize
every taxpayer dollar allocated for these programs to be used
to actually serve children.
I hope the majority is interested in moving a bipartisan
child nutrition bill, one that will help improve how these
programs work to reach children and one that is fiscally
responsible. Those two things are not mutually exclusive and I
believe if we both come to the table recognizing the need for
these principles to be achieved, we could send the Senate a
great bill, one that helps address the hunger needs in
America's youth, one that helps programs like the summer
program reach more kids, and one that helps schools reach more
students by serving food that doesn't cost more than they take
in and provides food kids will actually eat.
I look forward to the discussions of this issue with the
chairwoman and Chairman Scott.
I also feel it is necessary to correct some information for
the record on the SNAP rule we discussed today. This is issue
is actually in the agriculture committee's jurisdiction, of
which I am a member. I can tell you the proposed Able-Bodied
Adult Without Dependents rule amends the regulatory standards
by which USDA evaluates State staff agency requests to weight
the time limit and to end unlimited carryover of percentage
exemptions.
The proposed rule would encourage broader application of
the statutory work requirement consistent with both the
bipartisan welfare reforms of 1996 and the Administration's
focus on fostering self sufficiency. Simply put, this proposal
does not eliminate waivers, rather, expects States to provide
legitimate support for such requests. Despite a booming
economy, millions of able-bodied adults are excluded from the
labor market because of State gimmicks. We also exclude these
adults from education and volunteer opportunities because
States find it easier to ignore this population than invest in
them. More than 1,200 jurisdictions across the country have no
expectation of employment for SNAP recipients. And this rule
takes necessary to move individuals from welfare to work.
Further, any adult with a dependent in the household is
exempt. It does not matter if the dependent is placed there
officially or unofficially. If the adult in question reports a
dependent in the household, the rule does not apply. In fact,
the Food and Nutrition Act exempts any adult with a dependent
in the household, and this rule does not change a thing related
to that.
Mr. Lipps, thank you again for coming today. I appreciate
the opportunity to discuss these important issues with you.
And I yield back.
Chairwoman BONAMICI. Thank you.
I now recognize myself.
Mrs. FOXX. Madam Chairwoman? Madam Chairwoman?
Chairwoman BONAMICI. Yes, I recognize--
Mrs. FOXX. I would like to submit for the record an article
from the Washington Times related to the blessings of work and
correcting any attitude that work is a punishment.
Chairwoman BONAMICI. Without objection.
Mrs. FOXX. Thank you.
Chairwoman BONAMICI. I now recognize myself for the purpose
of making my closing statement.
I want to start by welcoming again the foster youth who are
here with us today. I am sure they benefited from listening to
our conversation. I also want to thank Representative Johnson
for bringing up the farm to school program, which I know has
support on both sides of the aisle. When I just had lunch with
students in Oregon they were happily eating roasted broccoli
and asparagus from a local farm, only instead of asking for
bison they were asking for sushi.
So, Mr. Lipps, thank you again for being with us to examine
the policies and priorities of the USDA's Food and Nutrition
Service.
As we discussed today, evidence-based nutrition assistance
programs run by the FNS have long served as our country's most
effective programs for making sure that every child has access
to the healthy food needed to grow and succeed.
And, importantly, this hearing has illuminated several ways
in which FNS under this administration is not meeting its
commitment to hungry children across the country. Rolling back
nutrition standards and undermining programs that help needy
families to put food on the table are contrary to the FNS
mission to increase food security and reduce hunger.
For the Federal Government to fulfill its responsibility to
set the future of our country on a path to success, FNS must
recommit to providing basic nutrition assistance to those who
need it most. And Congress must do its part to restore
bipartisan support for vital nutrition programs that tens of
millions of children across the country rely on every single
day.
Mr. Lipps, I do look forward to continuing our work
together, along with my colleagues here on the subcommittee and
the committee to strengthen child nutrition programs and
protect the progress we have made toward providing children
with nutritious foods that both fuel their health and their
development. The future of our country depends on it.
I want to again thank everyone for taking time to join us
today.
There being no further business, this subcommittee stands
adjourned.
[Additional submission by Chairwoman Bonamici follow:]
School Nutrition and Meal Costs Study Summary of Findings:
https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/resource-
files/SNMCS--Summary-Findings.pdf
[Additional submissions by Mrs. Foxx follow:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the subcommittees were
adjourned.]
[all]