[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
EXAMINING THE USDA'S PROPOSED CUTS
TO FREE SCHOOL MEALS
=======================================================================
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, OCTOBER 16, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-43
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor
[GRAPHIC(S) 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
39-486 PDF WASHINGTON : 2021
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 Lloyd Smucker, Pennsylvania
Donald Norcross, New Jersey Jim Banks, Indiana
Pramila Jayapal, Washington Mark Walker, North Carolina
Joseph D. Morelle, New York James Comer, Kentucky
Susan Wild, Pennsylvania Ben Cline, Virginia
Josh Harder, California Russ Fulcher, Idaho
Lucy McBath, Georgia Van Taylor, Texas
Kim Schrier, Washington Steve Watkins, Kansas
Lauren Underwood, Illinois Ron Wright, Texas
Jahana Hayes, Connecticut Daniel Meuser, Pennsylvania
Donna E. Shalala, Florida Dusty Johnson, South Dakota
Andy Levin, Michigan* Fred Keller, Pennsylvania
Ilhan Omar, Minnesota Gregory F. Murphy, North Carolina
David J. Trone, Maryland
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 October 16, 2019................................. 1
Statement of Members:
Bonamici, Hon. Suzanne, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Civil
Rights and Human Services.................................. 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 4
Comer, Hon. James, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Civil
Rights and Human Services.................................. 5
Prepared statement of.................................... 6
Statement of Witnesses:
Lipps, Mr. Brandon, Deputy Under Secretary for Food,
Nutrition, and Consumer Services, U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA)......................................... 8
Prepared statement of.................................... 10
Additional Submissions:
Chairwoman Bonamici:.........................................
Letterhead dated August 7, 2020 from National Education
Association (NEA) on behalf of Alma Adams.............. 49
Letter dated October 15, 2019 from National Education
Association (NEA)...................................... 50
Mr. Comer:...................................................
Letterhead dated September 20, 2019 from Congress of the
United States.......................................... 51
Letter from Congress of the United States................ 54
Fudge, Hon. Marcia L., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Ohio:.............................................
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)Comment
Letter................................................. 55
Letter dated October 2, 2019 from Congressional Black
Caucus................................................. 86
Letter dated October 16, 2019 from This Mark Matters..... 91
Hayes, Hon. Jahana, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Connecticut:......................................
Interreligious Work Group On Domestic Human Needs (DHN).. 93
Letter dated September 23, 2019.......................... 97
Lee, Hon. Susie, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Nevada:.................................................
Letter dated September 20, 2019 from Mazon............... 99
Thompson, Hon. Glenn ``GT'', a Representative in Congress
from the State of Pennsylvania:............................
Letter dated October 23, 2019............................ 107
Link: FNS Quality Control Process for SNAP Error Rate.... 107
Trone, Hon. David J., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Maryland:.........................................
Notice of Proposed Rule Making from Maryland Hunger
Solutions.............................................. 108
Comment on FR Doc # 2019-15670........................... 109
Comment on FR Doc: 2019-15670............................ 112
Community Eligibility: The Key to Hunger-Free Schools.... 113
Questions submitted for the record by:
Ms. Fudge................................................ 140
Mrs. Lee................................................. 141
Omar, Hon. Ilhan, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Minnesota..................................... 141
Scott, Hon. Robert C. ``Bobby'', a Representative in
Congress from the State of Virginia.................... 140
Mr. Lipp's response to questions submitted for the record.... 143
EXAMINING THE USDA'S PROPOSED CUTS
TO FREE SCHOOL MEALS
----------
Wednesday, October 16, 2019
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Human Services,
Committee on Education and Labor,
Washington, D.C.
----------
The subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 2:53 p.m., in
Room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building. Hon. Suzanne Bonamici
[chairwoman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Bonamici, Grijalva, Fudge,
Schrier, Hayes, Trone, Lee, Comer, Thompson, and Johnson.
Also Present: Representatives Scott,Wild, Jayapal, Adams
Foxx and Keller.
Staff Present: Tylease Alli, Chief Clerk; Ilana Brunner,
General Counsel; Carrie Hughes, Director of Health and Human
Services; Ariel Jona, Staff Assistant; Stephanie Lalle, Deputy
Communications Director; Jaria Martin, Clerk/Assistant to the
Staff Director; Kevin McDermott, Senior Labor Policy Advisor;
Richard Miller, Director of Labor Policy; Kota Mitzutani, Staff
Writer; Max Moore, Office Aid; Janice Nsor, Oversight Counsel;
Veronique Pluviose, Staff Director; Banyon Vassar, Deputy
Director of Information Technology; Katelyn Walker, Counsel;
Joshua Weisz, Communications Director; Rachel West, Senior
Economic Policy Advisor; Courtney Butcher, Minority Director of
Member Services and Coalitions; Dean Johnson, Minority Staff
Assistant; Amy Raaf Jones, Director of Education and Human
Resources Policy; Hannah Matesic, Minority Director of
Operations; Audra McGeorge, Minority Communications Director;
Jake Middlebrooks, Minority Professional Staff Member; Carlton
Norwood, Minority Press Secretary; Chance Russell, Minority
Legislative Assistant; and Mandy Schaumburg, Minority Chief
Counsel and Deputy Director of Education Policy.
Chairwoman BONAMICI. I note that a quorum is present. I
note for the Subcommittee that Representative Davis of
California, Representative Adams of North Carolina,
Representative Jayapal of Washington, Representative Wild of
Pennsylvania, Representative Omar of Minnesota, and
Representative Keller of Pennsylvania are 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 witnesses.
The Subcommittee is meeting today in an oversight hearing
to hear testimony on examining the USDA's proposed cuts to free
school meals.
Pursuant to Committee Rule 7(c), opening statements are
limited to the Chair and Ranking Member. This allows us to hear
from our witness sooner and provides all members with adequate
time to ask questions.
I recognize myself now for the purpose of making an opening
statement.
Today we will examine a Department of Agriculture proposal
that will eliminate automatic access to free school meals for
close to one million children and threaten their food security.
On July 23, the USDA proposed a new rule that will restrict
eligibility for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program,
or SNAP. On its own, the proposal will cut access to food
assistance for about 3.1 million low income Americans, which
will have significant consequences for individuals and families
struggling to get by.
In my home state of Oregon, about 16 percent of households
will lose access to SNAP benefits as a result of this proposed
rule. But as we will discuss today, the proposal will have
additional consequences for low income children, many of whom
count on school meals as their most consistent source of
nutrition.
Through a provision called categorical eligibility,
children who are eligible for SNAP are automatically eligible
for free school meals.
According to the department's own analysis released late
yesterday afternoon, its proposed changes to SNAP will cut
automatic access to free school meals for close to one million
children.
Shockingly, the department failed to disclose this analysis
when it originally published its proposal despite being
required to do so.
In fact, the only reason we originally knew of the
consequences of the proposed SNAP rule, is that a member of the
Committee staff asked the department directly on a briefing
call about the effect on school meals.
After waiting months for this analysis, we have now learned
that the rule will be even worse for students and families than
we originally understood and the department still has not fully
accounted for the ripple effects of this proposal.
Under the Community Eligibility Provision, nearly 2,000
schools across the country provide free school meals to all of
their students because more than 40 percent of their students
participate in an anti-poverty program such as SNAP.
Schools participating in Community Eligibility appreciate
the simplification of the program, the reduction of paperwork,
and importantly, the elimination of stigma among students.
For schools currently just above the 40 percent threshold,
the proposed rule very well could kick enough students off SNAP
that the school would lose access to the Community Eligibility
Provision.
As a result, these schools will be forced to go through the
burdensome process of asking low income families to fill out
individual applications for free or reduced price school meals.
We already know that without community eligibility, hungry
children who would otherwise be eligible across the country are
going without meals. And we now know that the department failed
to account for the potential--this potential effect in its
analysis.
Inevitably, if this rule is implemented, many more low
income students who are eligible for free or reduced priced
school meals will not receive the food assistance they
desperately need. That is nothing short of a preventable
tragedy.
To justify its proposed rule, the administration is
pointing to a single case of one wealthy individual who
intentionally manipulated the SNAP system and then the
department argues that we must, quote, close loopholes.
To be clear, we are not talking about wealthy kids taking
advantage of the system. According to USDA's own analysis, 93
percent of households that will lose eligibility for free
school meals will still be eligible for reduced price school
meals after filling out an individual application.
These are children from poor families living just above the
poverty line. It is not easy for these families. In fact, just
last week I met with Family Promise, an organization that helps
homeless families get back on their feet and regain
independence.
A tearful mother shared her story of trying to find
employment that will cover rent which is already hard. This
rule will only exacerbate the challenges for those who are
struggling. The department is using a misleading claim to
dismiss the real struggles of millions of families in dire need
of food assistance.
The reality is that this administration is going to be
making more hungry children go without breakfast or lunch to
pay for its nearly $2 trillion tax cut that overwhelmingly
benefited corporations and the wealthy.
The Trump Administration's proposed rule not only denies
children automatic access to school meals, it denies them the
ability to reach their potential. A large body of scientific
research and basic common sense show that hungry children can't
learn.
The President himself recognized the importance of school
lunch to our Nation's children when he declared this week
National School Lunch Week. I note that it is hypocritical
because at the same time the President acknowledges the
critical role these meals play in the academic success of
students, his administration is moving forward with a proposed
rule that will limit access to these meals for almost a million
children.
At a time when 1 in 7 children are already food insecure,
we should be doing more to prevent, so much more to prevent
children--childhood hunger.
Mr. Lipps, thank you again, Deputy Licks--Lipps, thank you
again for being here for this important conversation. However,
I do need to express my disappointment on two points.
First, Committee staff pointed out to the department that
your written testimony directly addressed a different Committee
than the one you are before today.
And it further does not address the effect of the proposed
SNAP rule on school meals. Despite bringing that to your
attention, you declined the opportunity to make changes to your
written testimony and make it more responsive to the topic of
today's hearing.
Second, your department waited until yesterday afternoon,
the afternoon before this hearing to release an analysis that
the Committee has been requesting for months, and,
unfortunately, you only intend to reopen the comment period for
an additional two weeks which is woefully insufficient in light
of how many people will be affected by this rule.
I hope you will show respect to the Members of this
Committee and the people we represent by addressing these
concerns directly in your oral testimony and answers during
today's hearing.
I now recognize the distinguished Ranking Member 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
Today we will examine a Department of Agriculture proposal that
will eliminate automatic access to free school meals for close to one
million children and threaten their food security.
On July 23rd, USDA proposed a new rule that will restrict
eligibility for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP.
On its own, the proposal will cut access to food assistance for 3.1
million low-income Americans, which will have significant consequences
for individuals and families struggling to get by. In my home state of
Oregon, 16 percent of households will lose access to SNAP benefits as a
result of this proposed rule.
But, as we will discuss today, the proposal will have additional
consequences for low-income children, many of whom count on school
meals as their most consistent source of nutrition.
Through a provision called categorical eligibility, children who
are eligible for SNAP are automatically eligible for free school meals.
According to the Department's own analysis released late yesterday
afternoon, its proposed changes to SNAP will cut automatic access to
free school meals for close to one million children.
Shockingly, the Department failed to disclose this analysis when it
published its proposal, despite being required to do so. In fact, the
only reason we originally knew the consequences of the proposed SNAP
rule is that a member of the Committee staff asked the Department
directly on a briefing call about the effect on school meals.
After waiting months for this analysis, we now have learned that
the rule will be even worse for students and families than we
originally understood, and the Department still has not fully accounted
for the ripple effects of its proposal.
Under the Community Eligibility Provision, nearly 2,000 schools
across the country provide free school meals to all their students
because more than 40 percent of their students participate in an anti-
poverty program, such as SNAP. Schools participating in Community
Eligibility appreciate the simplification of the program, the reduction
of paperwork, and, importantly, the elimination of stigma among
students.
For schools currently just above the 40 percent threshold, the
proposed rule very well could kick enough students off SNAP that the
school would lose access to the Community Eligibility Provision. As a
result, these schools will be forced to go through the burdensome
process of asking low-income families to fill out individual
applications for free or reduced price school meals. We already know
that, without community eligibility, hungry children who would
otherwise be eligible across the country are going without meals. And
we now know that the Department failed to account for the potential
effect in its analysis.
Inevitably, if this rule is implemented, many more low-income
students who are eligible for free or reduced price school meals will
not receive the food assistance they desperately need. That is nothing
short of a preventable tragedy.
To justify its proposed rule, the Administration is pointing to a
single case of one wealthy individual who intentionally manipulated the
SNAP system, and arguing that we must, quote, ``close loopholes.''
To be clear, we are not talking about wealthy kids taking advantage
of the system. According to USDA's own analysis, 93 percent of
households that will lose eligibility for free school meals will still
be eligible for reduced price school meals after filling out an
individual application. These are children from poor families living
just above the poverty line. It's not easy for these families. Just
last week I met with Family Promise, an organization that helps
homeless families get back on their feet and regain independence. A
tearful mother shared her story of trying to find employment that will
cover rent; it's already hard and this rule will only exacerbate the
challenges for those who are struggling.
The Department is using a misleading claim to dismiss the real
struggles of millions of families in dire need of food assistance. The
reality is that the Administration is going to be making more hungry
children go without breakfast or lunch to pay for its nearly $2
trillion tax cut that overwhelmingly benefited corporations and the
wealthy.
The Trump Administration's proposed rule not only denies children
automatic access to school meals, it denies them the ability to reach
their potential. A large body of scientific research and basic
commonsense shows that hungry children can't learn. The President
himself recognized the importance of school lunch to our nation's
children when he declared this week National School Lunch Week. I note
that it is hypocritical; at the same time the President acknowledges
the critical role these meals play in the academic success of students,
his Administration is moving forward with a proposed rule that will
limit access to these meals for almost a million children. At a time
when one in seven children are already food insecure, we should be
doing so much more to prevent child hunger.
Mr. Lipps, thank you again for being here for this important
conversation; however, I also need to express my disappointment on two
points. First, Committee staff pointed out to the Department that your
written testimony directly addressed a different Committee than the one
you are before today, and further it does not address the effect of the
proposed SNAP rule on school meals. Despite bringing that to your
attention, you declined the opportunity to make changes to your written
testimony and make it more responsive to the topic of today's hearing.
Second, your Department waited until yesterday afternoon to release
an analysis that the Committee has been requesting for months, and,
unfortunately, you only intend to reopen the comment period for two
weeks. This is woefully insufficient in light of how many people will
be affected by this rule. I hope you will show respect to Members of
this Committee and the people we represent by addressing these concerns
directly in your oral testimony and answers during today's hearing.
Now, I will yield to the Ranking Member for the purpose of making
an opening statement.
______
Mr. COMER. Thank you. Education is a critical part of
student success later in life and we know there is a
correlation between food and healthy nutrition and the capacity
of children to develop and learn. That is why Federal funds
have been used to provide free or reduced priced school meals
to students for more than 70 years.
With this in mind, I think it is also appropriate to
recognize that this week marks a celebration of national school
lunch week. A week dedicated to acknowledging the benefits of
the National School Lunch Program and promoting access to
nutritionally-balanced meals for students across the country.
Everyone in this room wants what is best for our Nation's
school children. Unfortunately, my colleagues on the other side
of the aisle are intent on painting the picture that this
administration is eager to put school age children in harm's
way and that is simply not the case.
Today you will hear democrats wrongfully argue that the
administrations rule will deny school children access to free
meals. Their manipulation of the data may generate headlines
and it certainly advances the Democrat's narrative but it is
far from the truth.
I am afraid my colleagues have missed the point of the
USDA's rules and I would like to take a moment to set the
record straight.
All eligible children will continue to receive school
meals. Let me repeat that. All eligible school children will
continue to receive meals.
Currently, eligibility loopholes allow states to make
families receiving minimal Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families or TANF benefits automatically eligible to participate
in USDA's Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP.
The purpose of TANF is to provide assistance to needy
families to allow children to be cared for in their own homes
and in parents' dependence on government benefits through work,
promotion, and marriage.
Yet for years the Federal government has allowed states to
utilize Federal loopholes to virtually eliminate the income and
asset requirements for SNAP. The expanded eligibility has
included families with incomes that far exceed eligibility
requirements.
In fact, I am sure we have all heard by now the story of a
millionaire living in Minnesota who was able to successfully
enroll in the program. While this is likely not common, it is
emblematic of a larger problem in these programs.
So the administration issued the rule we are discussing
today which is aimed at curtailing states from exploiting
eligibility loopholes.
The benefits offered to those in need should actually reach
those in need. We have a responsibility to diligently and
responsibly allocate taxpayer dollars.
Too many in Congress find it way too easy to spend hard
earned taxpayer dollars without promising accountability. And
that is an insult to every citizen who has entrusted us with
their representation. Taxpayer dollars should be used
effectively, efficiently, and in accordance with the law.
Committee Republicans believe that students who need free
or reduced price lunches should be able to receive them.
Period.
Nothing in the proposed rule will change income eligibility
thresholds in the child nutrition laws.
USDA is taking comprehensive steps to ensure that benefits
are provided effectively, efficiently and with integrity to
those most in need, an effort that everyone on this Committee
should be able to report. Thank you, Madam Chair.
[The statement of Mr. Comer follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. James Comer, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Civil Rights and Human Services
``Education is a critical part of students' success later in life
and we know there is a correlation between food and healthy nutrition
and the capacity of children to develop and learn. That is why federal
funds have been used to provide free or reduced-price school meals to
students for more than 70 years. With this in mind, I think it is also
appropriate to recognize that this week marks the celebration of
National School Lunch Week - a week dedicated to acknowledging the
benefits of the National School Lunch Program and promoting access to
nutritionally- balanced meals for students across the country.
Everyone in this room wants what is best for our nation's school
children. Unfortunately, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
are intent on painting the picture that this administration is eager to
put school-aged children in harm's way; and this simply is not the
case.
Today, you will hear Democrats wrongfully argue that the
administration's rule will deny school children access to free school
meals. Their manipulation of the data may generate headlines, and it
certainly advances the Democrats' narrative, but it is far from the
truth.
I'm afraid my colleagues have missed the point of USDA's rule, and
I'd like to take a moment to set the record straight.
All eligible children will continue to receive school meals. Let me
repeat that. All eligible children will continue to receive school
meals.
Currently, eligibility loopholes allow states to make families
receiving minimal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
benefits automatically eligible to participate in USDA's Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). The purpose of TANF is to `provide
assistance to needy families to allow children to be cared for in their
own homes, and end parents' dependence on government benefits through
work promotion and marriage.'
Yet for years the federal government has allowed states to utilize
federal loopholes to virtually eliminate the income and asset
requirements for SNAP. The expanded eligibility has included families
with incomes that far exceed eligibility requirements. In fact, I am
sure we have all heard by now the story of a millionaire living in
Minnesota was able to successfully enroll in the program. While this is
likely not common, it is emblematic of a larger problem in these
programs. So, the administration issued the rule we are discussing
today, which is aimed at curtailing states from exploiting an
eligibility loophole.
The benefits offered to those in need should actually reach those
in need. We have a responsibility to diligently and responsibly
allocate taxpayer dollars. Too many in Congress find it way too easy to
spend hard-earned taxpayer dollars without promising accountability.
That is an insult to every citizen who has entrusted us with their
representation. Taxpayer dollars should be used effectively,
efficiently, and in accordance with the law.
Committee Republicans believe that students who need free or
reduced-priced lunches should be able to receive them. Period. Nothing
in the proposed rule will change income eligibility thresholds in the
child nutrition laws. USDA is taking comprehensive steps to ensure that
benefits are provided effectively, efficiently, and with integrity to
those most in need - an effort that everyone on this Committee should
be able to support.''
______
Chairwoman BONAMICI. Without objection, all other members
who wish to insert written statements into the record may do so
by submitting them to the Committee Clerk electronically in
Microsoft Word format by 5 p.m. on October 29, 2019. I will now
introduce our witness.
Brandon Lipps is the Deputy Undersecretary of the Food,
Nutrition and Consumer Services, FNCS at the U.S. Department of
Agriculture.
Previously Mr. Lipps served as administrator of the food
and nutrition service and also acted--and also as Acting Deputy
Undersecretary of the FNCS from July 2017 to August of 2019.
Pursuant to Committee Rule 7(d), the witness will please stand
and raise his right hand.
[Witness sworn.]
Chairwoman BONAMICI. Let the record show that the witness
answered in the affirmative.
We appreciate the witness for being here today and we 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 7(d) and Committee practice, you
are asked to limit your oral presentation to a 5 minute summary
of your written statement.
Before you begin your testimony, please remember to press
the button on the microphone in front of you so it will turn on
and the Members can hear you. And as you being to speak, the
light 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 and we ask that you please wrap up.
We will let the witness make his presentation before we
move to member questions and when answering a question, please
remember to once again turn your microphone on.
I now recognize Deputy Undersecretary Lipps.
TESTIMONY OF BRANDON LIPPS, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY FOR FOOD,
NUTRITION, AND CONSUMER SERVICES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE
Mr. LIPPS. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member
Comer, and Members of the Committee for the opportunity to
discuss the administration's priorities and answer any
questions you may have with regard to child nutrition
reauthorization.
I am Brandon Lipps, the Deputy Under Secretary for Food,
Nutrition, and Consumer Services. FNS is responsible for
administering America's nutrition assistance programs which
leverage our Nation's agricultural abundance to ensure every
American has access to wholesome, nutritious food, even when
they face challenging circumstances.
This Committee, as noticed by the Chairwoman's opening
statement has expressed interest in USDA's recent regulatory
actions related to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program. Yesterday, the Food and Nutrition Service released an
informational analysis on the proposed rule to refine
categorical eligibility requirements based on receipt of
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, commonly known as TANF
benefits under SNAP.
The new informational analysis estimates that for children
and households found to have income and asset above SNAP's
statutory eligibility, an estimated 96 percent of those
children will remain eligible for free or reduced priced meals
if this proposed rule becomes final in its current form.
For the remaining estimated 40,000 children or one tenth of
one percent of all children receiving school lunch, their
family income exceeds the congressionally set NSLP statutory
eligibility standard of 185 percent of the poverty line.
We have also submitted a Federal Register notice which will
appear later this week indicating we will also be reopening the
comment period for 14 days to provide the public an opportunity
to review and provide comment on this document as part of the
rule making record.
While I cannot discuss the content of the final rule or the
comments we have received before they are published, I would
like to take a moment to talk about the department's objectives
in this area.
As you know, Americans are a generous people who believe in
helping those who have fallen on hard times. But we all agree
that those who can provide for themselves should.
SNAP and our other programs are critical to millions of
Americans and we should be proud to have the abundance to come
alongside them in hard times. But in order to do that, we have
to be good stewards of every dollar.
For far too long, negative press has weakened American's
confidence and important programs you have charged us with
administering at the Food and Nutrition Service.
The stories are sometimes so egregious they appear surely
to be only rumors but are unfortunately verified as factual,
jeopardizing the future of these important programs for
millions of families.
Let's first look at broad based categorical eligibility.
There was recently a story about a millionaire and previously
there have been stories about other millionaires who have
accessed the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program through
this loophole.
The loophole was first exposed by Congress own oversight
authority, the General Accountability Office in a 2012 report
as having quote a negative effect on SNAP program integrity. As
some states are designating SNAP applicants as categorically
eligible without providing them the service required to make
that determination.
The loophole received greater scrutiny in a 2015 Office of
Inspector General of USDA report that described how one state
conferred eligibility by providing recipients with quote a
brochure for social services. And the OIG went on to note that
the state only mailed the brochure to applicants after it
conferred the eligibility for SNAP.
Next let's look at families living across the state line
from each other, just miles apart. We have learned that one
family is receiving two and a half times less in SNAP benefits
simply because one state uses an inflated and inaccurate
utility deduction.
What began as a series of observations from front line
staff at the Food and Nutrition Service about potential
irregularities then became a full blown USDA study initiated in
2014.
We have since confirmed these irregularities because many
states cannot cite the sources of their base calculation for
the deduction or the year in which they were established. This
not only creates an uneven patchwork for the administration of
a Federal program but it is morally unfair to those receiving
unequal benefits.
And finally, with the lowest unemployment rate in 50 years,
we have employers across this country who cannot find enough
workers. Yet states are continuing to wave congressionally
mandated work requirements. We have states currently exempting
counties with unemployment rates as low as 3.6 percent who were
claiming lack of sufficient jobs in that county.
Egregious program abuses such as these leave a dark cloud
over this important program risking future support and
reflecting negatively on participants who need access to the
programs. Families on these programs and the taxpayers who fund
them expect better from their government.
We at USDA are dedicated to ensuring that these important
programs are preserved for those in need and that they are
administered equitably with integrity and within the
eligibility standards that Congress has provided in the law. I
remain committed to listening to and collaborating with all
stakeholders, including each of you on this Committee. Working
together, we can improve the lives of those who fall on hard
times and come in contact with these programs.
Thank you for having me and I am happy to answer any
questions.
[The statement of Mr. Lipps follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman BONAMICI. Thank you for your testimony. Under
Committee Rule 8(a) we will now question witnesses under the 5
minute rule. As Chair I have decided to go first and then I
will yield to the Ranking Member. We will then alternate
between the parties.
I now recognize myself for 5 minutes for the purpose of
questions.
Deputy Lipps, during a phone briefing with the House
Committee on Education and Labor staff on July 22, days before
the publication of the proposed rule, Pam Miller, the
administrator of the USDA Food and Nutrition Service stated
that the department estimated that more than 500,000 children
would lose their automatic eligibility for free school meals as
a result of the proposed rule.
Is it correct that Ms. Miller provided Committee staff with
this estimate of more than 500,000 children losing their
automatic access to free school meals? And this is a yes or no
question.
Mr. LIPPS. Chairwoman, I was not on that call. Pam does not
deny having that conversation. I can't tell you what the
details of the conversation were.
Chairwoman BONAMICI. Is there any reason to believe that
she did not tell Committee staff that the estimate of more than
500 children would lose their automatic access to school meals?
Mr. LIPPS. I do not know.
Chairwoman BONAMICI. Is it correct that the analysis that
your department published on Regulations.gov late yesterday
afternoon stated and I quote, as many as 982,000 children would
no longer be directly certified for free school meals? Is that
correct?
Mr. LIPPS. When, if their families no longer meet the
income and asset standards provided under SNAP, they will not
be directly certified for school meals but continue to be
eligible under the standards set in the child nutrition
statute.
Chairwoman BONAMICI. But does the analysis that you have
published on Regulations.gov state as many as 982,000 children
would no longer be directly certified for free school meals? Is
that in the analysis that you published?
Mr. LIPPS. That's correct. They would not be directly
certified if their families did not meet the asset income test
for SNAP.
Chairwoman BONAMICI. So we have had a lot of conversations
in this Committee about SNAP and school meals. The department
also states in its analysis of households that will no longer
be eligible for free school meals, 93 percent would only be
eligible for reduced price meals if they applied. So they are
actually losing access to free school meals, is that correct?
Mr. LIPPS. Chairwoman, the income test for school meals are
set in statute by the jurisdiction of this Committee and
students whose family meet those standards will qualify for the
application process if they are not directly certified through
SNAP.
Chairwoman BONAMICI. But is correct that 93 percent of
those children would only be eligible for reduced priced meals
if they apply? So they are losing access to free school meals,
correct?
Mr. LIPPS. There are multiple ways for children to enter
the school nutrition program so I can't talk about those
specific families for sure. But certainly for those who meet
the income standards provided in statute they will qualify
through the application process.
Chairwoman BONAMICI. So we have--we have also had
conversations in this Committee about the burden associated
with filling out applications and it is not reasonable to
assume that every child who is financially eligible will end up
receiving the benefit they need to thrive, is that correct?
There will be some children's whose parents or family members
do not fill out an application, is that correct?
Mr. LIPPS. Chairwoman, that is correct and the Agency and a
number of groups take a lot of actions to help make sure the
families are aware of their access and that they have the
opportunity to fill those out and ensure that their children
have access to those meals.
Chairwoman BONAMICI. I understand. But there will be
children whose parents do not fill out the forms or the
application so there will be children who will not get--
Mr. LIPPS. That may be true.
Chairwoman BONAMICI. Yes. Section 6A3C of Executive Order
12866, the regulatory planning and review requires
administration to include in the regulatory impact analysis of
a proposed rule all costs anticipated from a regulatory action
including adverse effects on health.
Why was the department's analysis of the effect of the
proposed rule on school meals missing from the initial
regulatory impact analysis?
Mr. LIPPS. Chairwoman, it was not missing. The Agency
conducted a proper regulatory impact analysis on this rule
which makes changes to the, refine the categorical, broad based
categorical eligibility in the SNAP program and considers all
relevant regulatory impacts with regard to that. Regulatory
impact analysis went through all proper clearance channels and
was cleared as a proper regulatory impact analysis related to
this.
Chairwoman BONAMICI. But the original, just to clarify, the
original regulatory impact analysis did not include the
analysis that you revealed yesterday afternoon, is that
correct?
Mr. LIPPS. That's correct.
Chairwoman BONAMICI. The Committee Chairman made multiple
requests for that analysis since the rule was published in
July. Why did the department wait until 5 p.m. the day before
the hearing to provide the Committee and the American public
with that analysis?
Mr. LIPPS. Chairwoman, we provided this analysis as soon as
it was available and ready. The Chairman requested that. The
agency conducted the analysis, went through the proper
clearance channels and was provided as quickly as possible.
Chairwoman BONAMICI. Mr. Lipps, the department knows that
nearly one million children will lose automatic access to free
school meals as a result of this proposed rule. This
information was not included in the initial RIA.
So how had--can the department determine that 14 days is
enough time for the public to meaningfully comment on this
proposed rule?
Mr. LIPPS. Chairwoman, we believe 14 days is sufficient
time for the public to comment on this specific four page
document. The record will be officially opened for 14 days.
The notice was given yesterday and it won't officially
publish until Friday so there will be some extra days in that
as well. But we do believe that is sufficient time for people
to comment on this--
Chairwoman BONAMICI. Well, I know I share the concerns of
many that is an insufficient time and the only reasonable
conclusion I can draw is that the department left the
information out to avoid public criticism. They know that this
would be poorly received by the public.
And additionally releasing the analysis at 5 p.m. on the
day before the hearing makes it appear that the USDA was trying
to thwart oversight. That concerns me. The USDA can and should
be better for Americans, children, and families. And I now
recognize the Ranking Member for the purpose of questioning the
witness.
Mr. COMER. Thank you. Secretary Lipps, I have a series of
quick questions I want to ask so the record will be clear on
this topic so please answer as briefly as possible. To begin
with, the broad based categorical eligibility rule is a rule
addressing a provision in the SNAP program, is that correct?
Mr. LIPPS. That's correct.
Mr. COMER. The impact analysis USDA completed on this SNAP
rule was how the program impacted SNAP participation, is that
correct?
Mr. LIPPS. That's correct.
Mr. COMER. Are the Child Nutrition Programs a part of the
SNAP Program?
Mr. LIPPS. No, sir.
Mr. COMER. Because the Child Nutrition Programs are not
part of the SNAP Program, USDA did not do an official analysis
of any impact to those programs in the proposed rule, is that
correct?
Mr. LIPPS. That's correct.
Mr. COMER. While no official analysis on the proposed rule
was done in an off the record call to Congress your staff
provided some back of the envelope calculations on that impact,
is that correct?
Mr. LIPPS. Yes, sir, I believe that's the call the
Chairwoman was referring to. Yes, sir.
Mr. COMER. But those calculations would not be included in
any official analysis that would be published or put out by
USDA at that, at this time, is that correct?
Mr. LIPPS. Right.
Mr. COMER. You have since published this information
analysis, correct?
Mr. LIPPS. Yes, sir.
Mr. COMER. Can you please walk us through what the actual
impact to child nutrition participation would likely be?
Mr. LIPPS. Yes, sir. The informational analysis that we
released yesterday showed that families who would not qualify
for direct certification through SNAP because they do not meet
the asset income test in the SNAP statute, will come into the
child nutrition program though the income test that this
Committee provides in statute.
And of those children who are indirectly affected because
their families no longer qualify for SNAP, 96 percent of them
will continue to qualify for free or reduced price meals under
the eligibility standards that you've set.
Mr. COMER. A few other questions. Under the child nutrition
laws, what are the eligibility requirements to receive free or
reduced price meals?
Mr. LIPPS. Free meals are provided to families whose income
is under 130 percent of poverty level and reduced is provided
for those between 130 and 185 percent of the poverty level.
Mr. COMER. Are there any requirements in SNAP either in the
statute or regulations that govern eligibility for free or
reduced priced meals under the Child Nutrition Program?
Mr. LIPPS. No, sir.
Mr. COMER. Does the proposed BBCE rule make any changes to
the eligibility requirement under the child nutrition law?
Mr. LIPPS. It does not.
Mr. COMER. Back to the child nutrition laws and regs. Is it
clear to parents and school food authorities on how students
can apply to receive free or reduced priced meals and does that
include through direct certification or a categorical
eligibility?
Mr. LIPPS. Those standards are clear. The agency works with
states and school districts and others to ensure that parents
know the opportunities for their children to participate in
those programs on a regular basis.
Mr. COMER. Does USDA have any policy or plan to try to
prevent eligibility student's from receiving free or reduced
price meals?
Mr. LIPPS. No, sir. We are trying to ensure that all of
those do have access.
Mr. COMER. Does that answer change if the BBCE proposed
rule is finalized?
Mr. LIPPS. It does not.
Mr. COMER. Has USDA put out guidance and answered question
on implementation of the Child Nutrition Programs to help
schools ensure eligible students receive free or reduced price
meals?
Mr. LIPPS. Yes.
Mr. COMER. All right. Well, thank you very much and, Madam
Chairwoman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairwoman BONAMICI. I now recognize Representative Fudge
from Ohio for 5 minutes and, Mr. Lipps, will you please when
you answer please make sure that your microphone is on and
maybe get a little closer to the microphone. We are having
trouble hearing you.
Mr. LIPPS. I think it's on. Is this better?
Chairwoman BONAMICI. Yes, that is better, thank you.
Mr. LIPPS. I'll pull it up.
Chairwoman BONAMICI. Ms. Fudge.
Ms. FUDGE. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And if I might
before I get into my questioning, Madam Chair, I would request
unanimous consent to enter into the record three letters urging
USDA to reconsider its proposed BBCE rule.
Chairwoman BONAMICI. Without objection.
Ms. FUDGE. Thank you very much. The first letter is dated
October 2, 2019 and it is signed by all 55 members of the
Congressional Black Caucus.
The second letter is dated September 23, 2019 and it is
signed by 24 attorneys general from across the country.
And the third letter is dated today, from the Dairy Farmers
of America. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman BONAMICI. Without objection.
Ms. FUDGE. Thank you. I, you know, Mr. Lipps, I had the
opportunity to watch part of your testimony this morning at Ag
Approps and determined that you were really very, very good at
evasion. I am certainly hopeful that you will be more
forthcoming this afternoon.
And as I continue to hear this broken record about finding
on person that scammed the system, I am so sick of it. So
because one person scammed the system we are supposed to punish
hungry kids.
That makes absolutely no sense to me. Okay, do something
with the one person. Don't punish all of these hungry children
in this country or senior citizens because one person broke a
rule. It is just ridiculous. And I am sick of hearing it. It is
just like a broken record.
I think that it is important for us to understand that this
is not about scuff laws. This is about taking care of people in
this country who are hungry.
Now, Mr. Lipps, your proposal just from your own
information will take food out of the mouths of three, more
than three million working families, children, seniors and
persons with disabilities.
The proposal would impact elderly SNAP households, I am
sure you are aware that approximately 13 percent of all SNAP
households with elderly members will lose their benefits. I
take hunger very, very seriously.
I represent one of the poorest districts in the United
States. Half of the children in the city of Cleveland are
living in poverty according to U.S. census data. These kids
often live in SNAP households and rely on the free nutritious
meals provided by their local schools to succeed in their
classrooms.
Unfortunately for poor Americans, the administration's plan
to cuts to SNAP do not end just with BBCE. To date, USDA has
published a trio of cruel SNAP proposals that will strip
critical food assistance away from millions of poor and working
families.
Do you know how many participants or households will lose
their benefits if all three of these rules were to be finalized
in their current form?
Mr. LIPPS. Ms. Fudge, I don't know what the interaction on
those is. You're correct about the 3.1 million on BBCE and
there is an estimated 775 on the ABOD rule.
Ms. FUDGE. Well, the numbers I have shows its going to be
about 4 million people. 4 million. Does that sound reasonable?
Mr. LIPPS. That's close.
Ms. FUDGE. Okay. So at least we are on the same page there.
So you think it is okay to put in place rules that would put 4
million people off of SNAP?
Mr. LIPPS. Representative, I think it is important that the
Agency carries out the asset and income standards that Congress
prescribes.
There is a conversation to be had about whether those need
to be changed to serve people differently, but they're provided
in statute.
Ms. FUDGE. So wait, wait, wait, back up. These are rules we
are talking about. This isn't something Congress prescribed.
Mr. LIPPS. That's correct.
Ms. FUDGE. This is something the USDA prescribed.
Mr. LIPPS. That's correct.
Ms. FUDGE. So let us be clear.
Mr. LIPPS. States have used this loophole to put people on
the program who are outside the asset and income standards that
Congress has prescribed.
Ms. FUDGE. So you want to throw out the baby with the
bathwater. Is that what you want to do?
Mr. LIPPS. We are ensuring--
Ms. FUDGE. Well, you have no control over these states?
Mr. LIPPS. We are ensuring that there is integrity in the
program by advancing this rule. Folks--
Ms. FUDGE. Who allows the states to make these decisions?
Us, right?
Mr. LIPPS. You prescribe in statute what the asset and
income--
Ms. FUDGE. So they are only doing what we are allowing them
to do.
Mr. LIPPS. It's our job to ensure that the asset and income
test that you prescribe are abided by in statute and that's
what this rule does.
Ms. FUDGE. Well, once again I would say, sir, that you all
believe in states' rights when it is to your advantage and you
don't when it is not.
What is your position on states right?
Mr. LIPPS. This rule is about ensuring that laws that you
have asked are complied with--
Ms. FUDGE. I didn't ask about the rules. I said what is
your position on states' rights is my question.
Mr. LIPPS. We believe that state flexibilities and some--
and how these programs are administered can test possibilities
to serve people better and there are opportunities where we do
that.
We do not believe that we should allow states to set
separate income and asset standards other than what Congress
has provided.
Ms. FUDGE. That is duplicitous. I mean, do you--did you
support it or don't you?
Mr. LIPPS. You provide situations in which we can provide
flexibility to states and you provided very clear income and
asset standards and we are ensuring that those are complied
with by refining how categorical eligibility is implemented in
this program.
Ms. FUDGE. Well, since you believe in states' rights I
think this is much ado about nothing. Madam Chair, I yield
back.
Chairwoman BONAMICI. Thank you. I now recognize Mr.
Thompson for 5 minutes.
Mr. THOMPSON. Secretary Lipps, good to see you. Great to
work with you. I appreciate your service, appreciate the
service of Secretary Purdue.
You know, this, despite the unfounded claims to the
contrary by some of my friends, this is not about scam, those
who are scamming. This is about program integrity. And food
security should be the focus.
I, as someone who chaired the Nutrition Subcommittee in the
Agricultural Committee and worked on these very issues, issues
that actually passed out of the House of Representatives, you
know, we should be focused on ensuring that those who are truly
in need are well served.
Free for all despite not being eligible takes food from
truly needy families and I would argue hungry children and that
is just wrong.
There is a finite number of dollars but we do have an
obligation, I believe, to serve those who are experiencing food
insecurity.
But we are talking about using, taking money literally away
from truly needy, financially needy families and perhaps and
many of them hungry families and children, to make it free for
all. That is just wrong.
I want to discuss the BBCE rule and the data we have
available. In addition to this Committee as you know, I serve
on the Agricultural Committee and was very involved in the farm
bill.
As you know the House passed bill proposed more a robust
data collection. I find it concerning that some of my
colleagues opposed getting that information then but are now
saying we should wait on this rule until we have more data.
Now I am afraid they can't have it both ways. The evidence
is clear. Three million individuals do not meet the basic
eligibility requirements of SNAP.
That is a textbook violation of program integrity
regardless of how my colleagues spin it and have to be
corrected to ensure that this program appropriately uses tax
payer dollars and appropriately serves those who are truly in
need.
We should do that, we should do that at our best and if we
are misusing the program, we don't have program integrity, we
are actually taking resources away from those who are truly in
need.
Now, Mr. Lipps, is it correct in my understanding that this
rule change will not impact individuals who are statutorily
eligible for SNAP benefits?
Mr. LIPPS. That's correct.
Mr. THOMPSON. Am I further correct that if a family
qualifies for SNAP, the children in that family will be
directly certified to receive free meals in school?
Mr. LIPPS. That continues to be the case.
Mr. THOMPSON. And does anything in this proposed BBCE rule
change the direct certification for school meals at all?
Mr. LIPPS. No, sir.
Mr. THOMPSON. Am I correct in saying that if we circulate
and it would be an appropriate part of our packet here, as a
Member of this Committee, and everyone got a SNAP application,
SNAP brochure we will just say which will be the appropriate
thing to do when we are talking about SNAP that because we
have--that has been given to us and that would be in our pack,
we would now--every Member of this Committee would be eligible
under broad based categorical eligibility for the SNAP program.
Mr. LIPPS. Mr. Thompson, that's precisely the issue that
both the Government Accountability Office and the Office of
Inspector General pointed out as the problem with broad based
categorical eligibility.
Mr. THOMPSON. And I think our income well goes well beyond
eligibility. But that is one of the things that there is a
program integrity issue. This is not about going after the
millionaire or the scam.
Yeah, we ought to do that, but this ought to be about
really helping the kids and the families who are truly in need.
Thank you, Mr. Lipps.
Now while you are here, I have got to take the opportunity
to discuss something else nutrition, child nutrition.
As you may recall, the last time you were before our
Committee, I discussed milk consumption in the Child Nutrition
Programs and the importance of moving just to allow whole milk,
not forcing it, not requiring it, but allowing whole milk in
addition to other flexibilities recently enacted.
I am curious if you have looked into the research on the
nutritional benefits of whole milk?
Mr. LIPPS. Mr. Thomson, the next time I come I'm going to
bring a pint of milk instead of my water just for you.
Mr. THOMPSON. Make it chocolate if you would, that is my
favorite.
Mr. LIPPS. I'm aware of the recent research in that area.
As you know the dietary guidelines, Scientific Advisory
Committee is currently operating and they will consider all of
that evidence on the whole as they look to revise the dietary
guidelines and advise if there is an update that should be made
on the percentage of milk served in schools.
Mr. THOMPSON. Great. Let me just finally and also like to
know if you have any preliminary data on milk consumption now
that we are into the school year and kids can access more milk
varieties including one percent and flavor?
Mr. LIPPS. We don't have any feedback on that immediately
from a study, Mr. Thompson. But anecdotally certainly there are
some children that enjoying milk with the new flexibilities.
Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Chairwoman.
Chairwoman LEE. Thank you. I now recognize Ms. Hayes for 5
minutes.
Ms. HAYES. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you, Mr.
Lipps, for being here. The last time you were before this
Committee, you said that you agreed that you did not like to
see hungry children and you emphasized Secretary Purdue's
pledge to do the right thing and feed everyone. Remember that?
Mr. LIPPS. I remember that.
Ms. HAYES. So I am just at a loss because without even
reviewing the research that clearly demonstrates that good
nutrition is vital to a child's development, any teacher can
tell you that hungry kids don't learn.
And you started out your testimony by saying those who can
provide for themselves should. Should I remind you that
children can't provide for themselves?
Can I ask you if this is a program integrity issue, just to
kind of switch gears, how many children did you say would
remain protected if this rule is implemented?
Mr. LIPPS. How many would remain--
Ms. HAYES. I mean, the percentage.
Mr. LIPPS. Remain eligible, 96 percent would remain
eligible.
Ms. HAYES. 96 percent. So this isn't a program where there
was rampant misuse if you have already identified that 96
percent of the people who would have access to it would still
continue to use the program.
So I am just curious as to why the U.S. Department of
Agriculture would target children in this way? It is not like
we are saying 4 percent of students are eligible and 96 percent
are misusing it. It seems like the program is operating with
integrity.
Mr. LIPPS. Well, I'll have to point back to the fact that
the rule is about integrity in the SNAP program. It has an
indirect effect on the school meals program based on the
linkages provided in statute.
And that's why per the income test that Congress has
provided in statute 96 percent of then will continue to be
eligible.
Ms. HAYES. Hungry kids don't care about income tests. So we
have a responsibility as the stewards of these programs, if you
will, to ensure that we are fixing the things that are broken
and maintaining the things that are working and not just
getting rid of everything arbitrarily.
Because you keep telling the story about this millionaire
who misused the system. I have a million stories about children
with their heads on their desks who come in, who are packing
lunches, friends are bringing in food, teachers are buying them
things to take home over the weekend, who are staying after
school because they have no home to go to.
So if we want to go story for story, I have so many stories
to tell you about what that looks like in the classroom. So it
is just deeply concerning to me that of all the areas where we
need work that targeting children at this time where food
insecurity is identified as such a critical problem in our
communities, that this is the direction that the department
would want to go.
Can you explain why the department--I am sorry. Did your
department include potential effects on educators in your
analysis of the proposed rules impact on school meal
eligibility or consult any educators?
Mr. LIPPS. There is not an analysis with regard to
educators in the informational analysis that we released.
Educators likely have commented in the record and we will
consider those and respond to them as a process of dealing with
the comments in the record.
Ms. HAYES. I am just curious. I know you are extending the
comment period. Why wasn't it opened initially for the full
period so that you can get as much robust information as you
could in order to make an informed decision?
Mr. LIPPS. Are you talking about specifically with regard
to this informational analysis?
Ms. HAYES. Yes.
Mr. LIPPS. The Agency conducted a regulatory impact
analysis as it was required for the statute. It went through
all appropriate clearance channels and was provided for public
input for 60 days.
The Chairman asked for this analysis and we have provided
it and as such we are providing it to the public for the
opportunity to comment.
Ms. HAYES. So it was opened for 60 days for public comment?
Mr. LIPPS. That is correct.
Ms. HAYES. So in the event this rule is finalized, does
your department have any plans to notify the families of the
nearly 1 million children that will now have to fill out a
form?
Because in years past they would not have had to fill out a
form so if they are unaware that now this is a requirement they
may just miss it again just on a procedural standpoint.
Mr. LIPPS. We work with--sorry.
Ms. HAYES. Go ahead.
Mr. LIPPS. We work with states and school districts every
year to ensure that families have those communications and we
will continue to do that as we move forward.
Ms. HAYES. But all of your testimony kind of lends itself
to the fact that you don't trust the states to be good stewards
of these programs.
Mr. LIPPS. I have not--
Ms. HAYES. So would--my question is would the department,
does the department have any plan to notify the families?
Mr. LIPPS. Not directly. The department does not administer
the program. Local school districts administer the program
under the supervision of their state and we provide them
technical assistance. We will continue to do that to ensure
that everybody--
Ms. HAYES. So the local school districts have the ability,
the capacity, the autonomy to oversee the program?
Mr. LIPPS. That's correct.
Ms. HAYES. I am sorry?
Mr. LIPPS. That's correct.
Ms. HAYES. That is correct. That is what I thought you
said. Thank you. Madam Chair, I yield back.
Chairwoman LEE. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Grijalva for
5 minutes.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Lipps, you are
arguing that you did not conduct the economic analysis of the
rules impact on school needs and needs meals because you were
not required to assess the impact on this population.
However, last night your department issued this analysis.
At what point did you acknowledge that you were--that you
actually needed to assess the impact on school meals?
Mr. LIPPS. Congressman, the regulatory impact analysis that
accompanied the rule that was published in the Federal Register
for comment was appropriately drafted and went through all
appropriate clearance channels with regard to its effect on the
program for which we were refining the integrity measures being
the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
This informational analysis was requested by the Chairman
of this Committee and we are providing it to him and as such
also providing it to the public in the record and opening the
comment period on the specific issue for them to have an
opportunity to comment.
Mr. GRIJALVA. But further in your testimony to my colleague
and in response, you just said that Ms. Miller provided our
staff with the back of the envelope analysis on a staff call
about the rule.
So are you admitting that your department was aware that
there would be a significant impact to the free school meals
program but did not think it was necessary to do a more
comprehensive analysis?
Mr. LIPPS. The analysis that was provided with the rule was
accurate and met all requirements for that standard and the
information was provided to the Committee upon request.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Well, you know, the administration proclaimed
I believe this week to be national school lunch week and
praising the success of the program that provides lunch to more
than 29 million children nationwide, Mr. Lipps, each month.
My question is if the administration believes that the
national school lunch program is so successful, why are you
proposing a rule that would remove nearly a million children
from that program that provides not only nutrition but provides
the setting for learning as well? So how do you reconcile those
two?
Mr. LIPPS. Congressman, it's important to reiterate that
this Committee sets the eligibility standards for school meals.
We do believe it is a wonderful program, has had great success.
I enjoy getting to see that success when I am out on the
ground.
The rule that you reference is a rule with regard to
refining the categorical eligibility in the SNAP program which
has provided a loophole to the asset and income test that a
committee of another jurisdiction has provided in statute.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Okay. You know, Congress has in terms of the
rule, Congress has repeatedly rejected efforts to eliminate the
categorical eligibility option including as recently as the
bipartisan 2018 Farm Bill was enacted last December.
That has been the will and the consensus and negotiations
that Congress has been involved with regard to this program.
Yet your rule attempts to pulmogate a policy that has already
been rejected by this Congress in terms of what happened with
the Farm Bill.
How do you reconcile that? That you are able to do what you
want and regardless of what this Congress's opinion, feelings
or will is?
Mr. LIPPS. Congressman, the rule was stated in the Agency's
work plan prior to consideration of the 2018 Farm Bill.
Congress did not make changes with regard to the Agency's
ability to refine broad based categorical eligibility to deal
with the issues brought up in the GAO and OIG report. Congress
was aware of that--
Mr. GRIJALVA. You didn't think the rejection efforts to
eliminate the categorical eligibility option was not a
statement relative to your work plan?
Mr. LIPPS. Congressman, Congress did not put in statute
requirements for us not to move forward with this rule and did
not change the asset and income test in statute and therefore
we are moving forward with refining broad based categorical
eligibility for those issues that we have talked about.
Mr. GRIJALVA. And in my district, Mr. Lipps, 4,000 kids,
just on the back of the envelope analysis as you did are going
to be affected and affected in a very real way in our schools.
And, you know, I don't know how we can reconcile telling
these kids and I don't know whose families are struggling they
should no longer have access to food while they're trying to
learn each day.
I, it's a contradiction, a contradiction that this Congress
has rejected as late as December and it's a contradiction that
you seem comfortable with. I yield back.
Chairwoman LEE. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Trone for 5
minutes.
Mr. TRONE. Thank you, Madam Chair. Your department
estimates nearly one million children will lose automatic
access to free school meals with your proposed rule.
But when SNAP participation rates go down, we also see a
decrease in the Identified Student Percentage, the ISP, which
is used to calculate the eligibility of the Community
Eligibility Provision, CEP.
This provision lets low income students in school district
provide free meals for all students. All students. The ISP also
determines the reimbursement rate from the Federal government
when they participate in CEP.
Decreasing those ISP rates therefore puts these schools at
risk of losing their ability to participate in a CEP that is
going to impact their financial bottom line.
Do you know how many schools nationwide have ISP's between
40 and 50 percent and therefore they are at risk of losing
their ability to have free meals for all students because of
this rule?
Mr. LIPPS. Congressman, I don't have that exact number. We
can get back to you. I will note that as you say, as the
economy continues to improve and SNAP enrollment goes down,
that does make this ISP percentage more difficult.
When Congress put the CEP provision in the 2010 Act which
is now expired, they tied the ISP percentage to direct
certification on SNAP.
That is a problem for schools as the economy improves and
people come off of SNAP and may be an issue. If you want to
look at that as you move forward with child nutrition
reauthorization, the Agency is certainly willing to provide
technical assistance on resolving that issue.
Mr. TRONE. Well, we appreciate that. Well, the answer is
roughly 2,000 schools. 2,000 schools are in that bracket when
that ISP drops they are going to lose their ability to take
care of all the students.
So it doesn't appear the department considered or analyzed
the effects of those schools that are near the 40 percent
threshold. That is the key. 2,000 schools. It is going to be
harder to feed our kids.
Madam Chair, I would like to ask unanimous consent to enter
into the record the Food Resource and Action Centers report
entitled Community Eligibility: The Key to Hunger Free Schools.
Madam Chair.
Chairwoman SCHRIER. [Presiding] Thank you. I would like to
recommend--to recognize--
Mr. TRONE. Without objection.
Chairwoman SCHRIER. Oh, sorry. Without objection.
Mr. TRONE. That will work. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr.
Lipps, I don't know how many schools nationwide, you know, if
you don't know how many schools nationwide have ISPs between 40
and 50 percent, does the department really know that there
aren't more than a million students who would be affected when
the entire school, whole school loses it, loses their CEP? Do
you know those numbers?
Mr. LIPPS. Congressman, as noted in this informational
analysis, particularly when you talk about these programs that
are linked to each other, these are based on estimates.
The department has prepared a proper analysis which they
believe to be accurate based on those estimates and put them
out. It does also note that a number of those children affected
may be in CEP schools and so the number may be significantly
lower based on that as well.
Mr. TRONE. Okay. We agree. The CEP also reduces paperwork
for the schools and parents so they can spend their time on
serving the students versus pushing the paperwork for the
Department of Education.
What was the administration doing to help parents of
children who no longer receive free meals through CEP to apply
for reduced price meals for their kids?
Mr. LIPPS. Congressman, we have about 6 to 7 million
children who come onto the school meals program through
applications every year and the agency working with states and
local school districts takes a number of actions to help
simplify that process as best we can and to ensure that parents
and families have all of the information they need to know the
availability for access and to ensure that their children have
access to--
Mr. TRONE. Well, in my district, we have three schools who
have lost their eligibility to implement CEP because the ISP
changed. So we are going to be looking to see if you guys help
those folks out with the paperwork burdens and if those kids
can then quality for free school meals that they maybe won't
ever get because of the paperwork that is overwhelming for the
kids, their parents, and the teachers. Madam Chair, I would
like to also ask unanimous consent to enter into the record
three letters in opposition to the proposed rule from
organizations that work to eliminate hunger in my district.
Manna Food Center, Maryland Hunger Solutions and the Montgomery
County Maryland Community Action Board.
Chairwoman SCHRIER. Without objection.
Mr. TRONE. Thank you. I simply can't understand why the
administration would take in actions makes it harder for
schools to be part of CEP. I can't support hungry kids and I am
disappointed that you support hungry kids.
Chairwoman SCHRIER. I would like to recognize Ms. Lee from
Nevada.
Ms. LEE. Thank you. Mr. Lipps, I would like to take a
moment to clarify something for the record here. Committee--you
and the Republicans on this Committee have said that 96 percent
of children impacted by the proposed rule will still be able to
participate in free and reduced priced meal. However, according
to the departments analysis that we got last night, of the
nearly 1 million children who will lose their direct
certification for free school meals, only 45 percent will
continue to be eligible for free school meals after they fill
out the individual application and there is all sorts of issues
with that.
51 percent will only be eligible for reduced price meal.
That is 30 cents for breakfast, 40 cents for lunch and 4
percent will be--will have to pay the full price.
Filling out individual applications as has been recognized
earlier is a huge burden for schools and families that the
department did not account for. And some eligible children
undoubtedly will fall through the cracks. This is a preventable
disaster.
For the 51 percent of impacted students who will only be
eligible for a reduced priced meal, paying 40 cents for lunch,
30 cents for breakfast can be an enormous financial burden for
families.
Children who qualify for reduced price meals are between
130 and 180 percent of the Federal poverty level. For a family
of four, think about that. That is an income for a family of
four between $33,455 and $51,000.
In my home State of Nevada, approximately 1,300 students
will lose their access to school meals because of the community
elimination of the CEP.
And, you know, this is at a time when we are wrestling with
increasing, widening income disparities and we have so many
families and children struggling with food insecurity.
In your written testimony, you stated that you have talked
about the importance the USDA gives to good customer service
and that comes from listening to customers. So I want to start
off and ask you several yes and no questions.
First of all, did you consider any input from any of these
families before the administration released this rule
essentially eliminating their eligibility?
Mr. LIPPS. Congresswoman, its important to recall that this
rule is about a refinement of SNAP broad based categorical
elements--
Ms. LEE. I understand.
Mr. LIPPS.--not with regards to school meals.
Ms. LEE. Did you consider any input from these families?
Mr. LIPPS. We drafted this rule based on the needs of the
SNAP programs and not child nutrition standards which this
Committee sits in statute.
Ms. LEE. Okay. So that is a no. Does the department think
that children of these families do not need free school meals?
Mr. LIPPS. Congresswoman, this Committee decides who should
get free and reduced priced meals. It is our job to carry that
out. There is a discussion to be had if you all want to change
those as part of child nutrition reauthorization. This agency--
Ms. LEE. Well, your change--okay.
Mr. LIPPS.--is happy to prepare technical assistance to
assist you with that.
Ms. LEE. But let me clarify. You are changing the rule
because of a report of one person who qualified for SNAP that
was wealthy thereby affecting millions of children across this
country.
Does the department think that children in these families
whose income are between this do not need free school meals?
Mr. LIPPS. Congresswoman, again, Congress makes that
decision on who qualifies for free school meals and reduced
price school meals and we carry that out.
Ms. LEE. Okay. With nearly 1 million, again this was just
updated, losing access, do you think it is reasonable to
conclude that child food insecurity will increase or decrease?
Mr. LIPPS. Congresswoman, 96 percent of those continue to
qualify under the standards provided in statute and we don't
know what those numbers are going to show.
Ms. LEE. Well, I understand but I think I want to--as I
clarified earlier, 51 percent of impacted students now may have
to pay. Other students will fall through the cracks because of
not knowing about the application or not properly filling it
out.
So my question, yes or no. Do you believe it will increase
food insecurity for children?
Mr. LIPPS. I don't have an answer to that Congresswoman, at
this time. We can certainly look at that as we move forward and
if you think those standards need to be different, we will
certainly be available to provide technical assistance on
changing them.
Ms. LEE. Okay. Well, thank you. I am--before I end, I would
like to enter into the record a letter from Abby Leibman,
president of Mazon clarifying the impacts that this rule change
will have on senior, veterans, Native Americans, and rural
Americans.
Chairwoman SCHRIER. Without objection. I would like to
recognize myself for 5 minutes.
So it turns out that today is world food day, a day meant
to highlight the ongoing fight against hunger.
And it seems particularly ironic that today we are talking
about a rule, a proposed rule, that would increase the number
of hungry children across this country, rather than lower it.
In my home State of Washington, there are 15,633 students who
stand to lose access to free school meals as a result of the
proposed rule about categorical eligibility. And in my district
in central Washington, there are over 3,300 students that stand
to lose their free lunch status.
There are many schools in my district with poverty rates
over 40 percent. That is nearly two and a half times the
National average of about 16 percent.
And according to the superintendent of the Manson School
District, many of these students eat two meals a day at school
which are often the only well-balanced, nutritious meals they
get. Many also participate in the summer meal program. Further,
the U.S. Census Bureau's Supplemental Poverty Measure shows
that the school meals program and SNAP measurably reduce the
rate of poverty.
Now, I know, Mr. Lipps, from your previous appearance
before our committee, that you care about the wellbeing of
children and so could you help me understand why the department
is choosing to move forward with a rule that will clearly
reduce access to nutrition programs that have been shown to
reduce poverty?
Mr. LIPPS. Sure. Congresswoman, I don't know if you were
here earlier for all of my comments on the fact that this is a
rule with regard to refining categorical eligibility in the
SNAP program.
Congress sets the asset and income tests for that program.
It's our job to ensure that they're abided by and that's what
this rule does.
There is an indirect effect on the school meals program and
those families have access to that school meals program via the
income standards that this Committee sets in statute and by
which 7 million other school children come under the program
every year.
Chairwoman SCHRIER. So let us just be clear that by ridding
of this categorical eligibility, people still qualify but they
will have to go through a whole bunch more hurdles, lots more
paperwork.
In fact, I don't have the numbers in front of me--well,
maybe I do but we would need in Washington State to hire 165
additional personnel just in order to take care of the
increased paperwork.
So this sounds like we are shifting our spending away from
spending on food for children and towards spending on
bureaucracy. That seems like the wrong direction to be going.
Mr. LIPPS. Do you have a question on that?
Chairwoman SCHRIER. I am contesting what you said. Do you
have any comments about that? Because I will go on.
Mr. LIPPS. Congresswoman, again, I would say this Committee
sets those asset and--those income tests for families to
participate in school meals. There are 7 million who come in
via this access point every year.
If Congress feels that is not the right way for kids to
come on the meals, they should deal with that in child
nutrition reauthorization and we will be at the table to
provide technical assistance on helping move forward in that
direction.
Chairwoman SCHRIER. I wanted to add as a pediatrician, I am
concerned that taking away school meals and this is from a half
a million kids nationwide and I talked about the numbers in my
state, will also decrease their academic performance and result
in probably worse behavior in school.
Research shows that children who participate in Federal
nutrition programs do better in math and reading and are more
likely to graduate and ultimately that means they will
contribute to our economy.
Did you consider the impact of this rule on academic
outcomes and the, and our economy later?
Mr. LIPPS. The SNAP rule considered impacts with regard to
administration of the SNAP program and went through all proper
clearance channels.
Chairwoman SCHRIER. Okay. And did you consider the
administrative burden and the transfer of dollars to
bureaucracy and to paperwork and hiring additional personnel
instead of putting food into children's bodies?
Mr. LIPPS. I do believe there is a consideration of the
administrative side of this issue in the recently released
informational analysis.
Chairwoman SCHRIER. Okay. I am going to conclude because I
have a few more seconds. Just with a general principle, that
there seems to be an underlying effort to take people who are
already on the edge in this country and make life just a little
bit tougher for them.
SNAP costs $1.40 per meal. We are a wealthy country. There
are plenty of places that we could make cuts that would not so
adversely affect people in this country who can least afford
that kind of trauma and difficulty in their lives.
These are programs that pull families out of poverty and
that make hungry people not hungry. I would like to thank you
for your attendance today.
Mr. LIPPS. Thank you.
Chairwoman SCHRIER. And I would like to recognize Dr. Foxx
for 5 minutes.
Mrs. FOXX. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and, Mr. Lipps,
thank you so much for being here today. We really appreciate
your coming back and being with the Subcommittee. I support
efficiency in programs. I support improving program integrity.
I support reducing the burden on grantees, states and others
when participating in or implementing Federal programs. And
with all that, I support ensuring the benefits offered to those
in need actually reach those in need. Taxpayers give the
Federal government their hard earned money and we owe it to
them to help make sure the money is used effectively,
efficiently and in accordance with the law.
I believe the proposed BBCE rule will ensure that
hardworking tax payer dollars are spent in accordance with the
law. Do you agree with that, Mr. Lipps?
Mr. LIPPS. Yes, ma'am.
Mrs. FOXX. I believe the proposed BBCE rule will impact
categorical eligibility within programs because individuals not
eligible, not eligible, will no longer be able to slide in to
eligibility for all programs by subverting the income
requirements and being considered a participant in another
program.
With that said, any family that actually qualifies for SNAP
will continue to do so when this rule becomes final. Is that
correct, Mr. Lipps?
Mr. LIPPS. Absolutely.
Mrs. FOXX. And therefore, the families that are eligible
for SNAP will be directly certified for free school meals when
this rule is finalized. Is that correct?
Mr. LIPPS. That's correct.
Mrs. FOXX. So despite hearing that an outrageous number of
students will lose access to free meals that is hardly close to
the actual impact of this proposed reel--rule. Is that correct,
Mr. Lipps?
Mr. LIPPS. That's correct.
Mrs. FOXX. Once the loophole in SNAP is closed, the
families that qualify for free or reduced price meals will
remain the same, correct?
Mr. LIPPS. Correct.
Mrs. FOXX. If your family earns 130 percent or below the
Federal poverty limit, your children qualify for free meals.
Nothing changes.
If your family earns between 130 percent and 185 percent of
the Federal poverty limit, your children qualify for reduced
price meals. Nothing changes. Is that correct, Mr. Lipps?
Mr. LIPPS. Yes. Yes, ma'am.
Mrs. FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Lipps. Mr. Lipps, several of my
colleagues have implied or directly stated that the policy is
targeted--targeting children and encouraging increased hungry
children.
That does not seem to be the purpose of this rule to me
based on your testimony, based on the rule, based on the
clarifications you have made.
Is there anything that has been discussed today at this
hearing that you'd like to clarify or reemphasize for the
record?
Is there anything you feel is mischaracterized that you
would suggest we look at more data to better understand how all
of these programs interact?
Mr. LIPPS. Congresswoman, I appreciate that. Hunger is an
important issue. We all agree on that. I know that that's
important to you, and I have heard your statements on that with
regard to your background and we all care about those issues.
Our job at USDA, you have tasked us to make, to ensure that
there is integrity in all of these programs. Broad based
categorical eligibility rule is an integrity rule dealing with
loopholes in the SNAP program to ensure the asset income test
and posed by the Committee of jurisdiction are complied with.
This Committee has jurisdiction over school meals programs.
You set the income tests for these programs and we ensure that
they are carried out in the best manner possible to ensure that
all of those children have access.
We do that today. We will continue to do that tomorrow. And
I appreciate the opportunity to clarify that.
I would also say with regard to interaction in the
programs, there are a lot of programs that interact with the
families that we serve at this point, particularly as families
move from free to reduced priced meals.
There is always a conversation to be had about ways to
better serve them and cause those programs to better interact
to help those families along.
This agency is always willing to be at the table to help
provide technical assistance on those discussions should this
Committee choose to move forward in those.
Mrs. FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Lipps. I don't believe anybody in
the Agriculture Department wants to put children in a position
where they are, there are more children who are hungry in this
country.
But I do think we want program integrity and we want the
adults who are utilizing this program inappropriately to be
held accountable. Thank you, Mr. Lipps. Thank you, Madam
Chairwoman.
Mr. LIPPS. Thank you.
Chairwoman SCHRIER. I would like to recognize my colleague
Mr. Johnson from South Dakota for 5 minutes.
Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Lipps, thanks for
being here today and I want to thank you for your passion
toward hunger and making sure we do what we can to reduce
hunger in this country.
This is a personal topic for me. I, like a number of my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle in Congress, utilized
SNAP benefits as a part of my family when I was growing up. And
we need a social safety net in this country for those people
who truly need it.
So thank you for your efforts to make sure that safety net
is intact and effective.
I want to--and I know you have been asked these questions
before but I just want to make sure that logically I understand
how this flows.
Mr. LIPPS. Sure.
Mr. JOHNSON. So the income and asset test for SNAP, that
has been set by Congress, is that right?
Mr. LIPPS. That's correct.
Mr. JOHNSON. And at the time that those standards were set,
Congress indicated I believe that their motivation, their
intent was to make sure that these resources were targeted
toward the most needy families. Is that right?
Mr. LIPPS. That is my understanding.
Mr. JOHNSON. So the law in search of administrative
efficiency, did provide for some categorical eligibility that
meant that people who qualified for some programs like TANF
which is quite difficult to qualify for, that they would be
considered eligible for programs that are a little easier to
qualify for like SNAP. Is that right?
Mr. LIPPS. That's correct, yes, sir.
Mr. JOHNSON. And it is my understanding that a number of
states have really strained that categorical eligibility in all
likelihood beyond what Congress intended into what we are now
calling broad based categorical eligibility.
And that it is not just possible but is happening today
that people who otherwise wouldn't qualify under the
Congressional established asset and income test are now
receiving benefits that they have not, they are no, they don't
legitimately are qualified for, right?
Mr. LIPPS. Yes, sir, that's correct. And as I have noted
before, this--that's the exact issue that the Government
Accountability Office and Office of Inspector General report
pointed out that are occurring in masse in a number of states.
Mr. JOHNSON. So I want to make sure that I have the facts
on this right because it was hard for me to believe the first
time I heard it.
There can be at the state level, someone who is deemed
qualified or receives--forget even substantial TANF benefits,
but perhaps a TANF funded information that then because they
have received quote a TANF benefit that there are some states
who then are without any income or any asset test are allowing
those individuals to be eligible for SNAP. Am I understating
that right?
Mr. LIPPS. You're correct, yes, sir.
Mr. JOHNSON. Those families then are eligible for the
school lunch program even though in some instances there has
been no income and no asset test conducted?
Mr. LIPPS. That's correct.
Mr. JOHNSON. So then in that environment, we are doing a
pretty poor job of targeting these important and scarce
resources toward the families that need it the most, is that
right?
Mr. LIPPS. Yes, sir.
Mr. JOHNSON. What is the--I know you have said it before,
Mr. Lipps, but what is the goal for the agency, for the
department with this proposed rule?
Mr. LIPPS. Congressman, the goal is to ensure that the
eligibility standards that Congress sets for these programs are
abided by and that the recipients on these programs know that
there is integrity in this program and that there is not a dark
cloud of new stories about these egregious behaviors that cover
these programs.
Congress provides an asset and income test for SNAP. This
Committee provides income tests for school meals. We are
ensuring those are abided by and we are not changing those. We
don't have the authority to change that at the agency.
Mr. JOHNSON. Okay. So I am going to provide a message to
families, needy families, and I want you to, after I give that
message, I want you to tell me in what ways it is flawed.
My message to those needy families would be sir, madam, if
your family meets the income and asset test for food stamps,
after this rule goes through, you will still be eligible?
Mr. LIPPS. Correct.
Mr. JOHNSON. For food stamps.
Mr. LIPPS. Correct.
Mr. JOHNSON. Sir, madam, if there are people who have made
you scared that the government is going to take away your
otherwise legitimately, eligible for benefits, you should not
be scared. If you qualify you will be eligible for those
benefits. Is that right?
Mr. LIPPS. That's correct.
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Lipps, thank you for making this very
clear for me. I appreciate it.
Chairwoman SCHRIER. Thank you. I would now like to
recognize our Chairman, Mr. Scott.
Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Lipps, for being here.
Let me just follow through, follow up on a question that was
just asked. There are a million people who would be not
categorically eligible for free lunch. Is that right?
Mr. LIPPS. There are a million children who will no longer
be directly certified for school lunch after the, if their
families don't meet the asset and income test in SNAP.
Mr. SCOTT. Okay. Now as I understand, 45 percent would
still be eligible for free lunch, for free meals, right?
Mr. LIPPS. Yes, sir.
Mr. SCOTT. If they apply.
Mr. LIPPS. Correct.
Mr. SCOTT. And what does the evidence show as to the
percentage of those who are eligible that end up slipping
through the cracks in the application process?
Mr. LIPPS. Mr. Chairman, I don't have data on that today. I
can see what we have and get back to you on that. There are 7
million children in this country who come in through the
application process every year based on the income test that
this Committee has provided in statute.
Mr. SCOTT. Well, you recognize somebody slips through the
cracks and this, this whole discussion doesn't make a lot of
sense unless we know how many--because if all 450,000 get
through the application process, we are just talking about a
little inconvenience but nobody is denied nutrition.
But if a significant portion can't get through the process,
then we have a problem, isn't that right?
Mr. LIPPS. Mr. Chairman, I would offer to you the same as I
did earlier. If this Committee is interested at looking at
other avenues to move children on to this program, other than
the asset--than the income test provided in statute, that
agency will stand ready to provide technical assistance on that
as you--
Mr. SCOTT. Well, we thought we had--
Mr. LIPPS.--reauthorization.
Mr. SCOTT.--before you, before this rule popped up.
Mr. LIPPS. You--
Mr. SCOTT. 450,000 were categorically eligible.
Mr. LIPPS. Direct certification will continue to occur.
Categorical eligibility between TANF and SNAP will continue to
occur. They will occur--they will work in the manner that they
were designed at the time of their--
Mr. SCOTT. Except that they are not categorically eligible.
They have to go through the application process and we don't
know how many we are going to lose in that process. 510,000
would be eligible for reduced price and if they apply is that
right?
Mr. LIPPS. Yes, sir that is the method for their entrance
in the program described in the--
Mr. SCOTT. And we don't--
Mr. LIPPS.--statute.
Mr. SCOTT.--know how many of those will lose eligibility--
will lose the benefit because they don't get through the
process, is that right?
Mr. LIPPS. I don't have an estimate on that.
Mr. SCOTT. Okay. And 40,000 will lose eligibility all
together.
Mr. LIPPS. Families who do not meet the income test
prescribed by this Committee in statute will not qualify for
free or reduced priced meals.
Mr. SCOTT. Well, yeah, but, I mean, we are not talking
about rich people. We are talking about people who would, who
are eligible for, you know, between 185 and 200 percent of
poverty. I mean, it is just a little, that is what we are
talking about, right?
Mr. LIPPS. Well, its families anywhere over 195 percent to
poverty level
Mr. SCOTT. Right.
Mr. LIPPS. And again, if Congress wants to change that we
will participate in technical assistance to help make that
happen.
Mr. SCOTT. And what is the asset level that will be
imposed?
Mr. LIPPS. There is no asset test in school meals program.
Mr. SCOTT. What is the asset in SNAP?
Mr. LIPPS. The asset test in SNAP Congress has set a $2,250
limit for assets in SNAP program.
Mr. SCOTT. Okay. Can you, in your written testimony you
mentioned the online purchasing pilot program.
Mr. LIPPS. Yes, sir.
Mr. SCOTT. Can you explain what affect that has on customer
service?
Mr. LIPPS. Sure. I think that program will provide a great
opportunity to ensure that SNAP recipients have the same
avenues to purchase their groceries as many of us others do.
That pilot launched in New York and we are seeing great success
there but we are being cautious to ensure that--
Mr. SCOTT. What does success mean?
Mr. LIPPS.--there is integrity both in the, on the SNAP
side of the program but also for the recipients.
Success means that recipients are able to purchase food and
have it delivered to their home with integrity and that we are
on a path to expand that so that more individuals may
participate in it.
Mr. SCOTT. And can you describe the SNAP employment and
training program?
Mr. LIPPS. Sure. The SNAP employment and training program
is a wonderful program that the Agriculture Committee has given
to FNS and to states who administer the program to provide
opportunities for SNAP recipients to train for jobs that will
advance their economic mobility.
We have wonderful stories from around the country of
individuals who participated in that program. I recently met
with a formerly incarcerated individual who was estranged from
his family who went through that program and is now running a
moving company very successfully and has reunited with his
program because of the time he spent in that employment and
training opportunity.
States, some states are doing a great job on that. We are
working to make sure that all states are doing a great job on
that and expanding those opportunities.
Mr. SCOTT. Can you describe a little bit about what kind of
training opportunities are available under that program?
Mr. LIPPS. Sure. There are lots of different opportunities
out there. Everything from culinary to wood working, Women in
nontraditional jobs, truck driving, met with some individuals
who were learning to code. So they're all across the spectrum
but we are ensuring that our providers are making--
Mr. SCOTT. And who runs the training programs?
Mr. LIPPS. The training programs are run by the states
through partners and we are working to--with states to ensure
that they're selecting partners who are providing people skills
that will provide them success in long term employment.
Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman SCHRIER. Thank you. I would like to recognize my
colleague, Ms. Jayapal from Washington. Oh, excuse me. Ms.
Wild.
Ms. WILD. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Lipps, first I want
to ask you a question on behalf of one of my colleagues, Susan
Davis who isn't here right now because she's at another
committee hearing.
She is a member of the Armed Services Committee and has
asked me to ask you about the effect or the potential effect of
these cuts on military families.
I will tell you I was an Air Force brat myself, moved
around from assignment to assignment with my family my entire
childhood and I know full well the struggles of military
families.
And often, they receive housing allowance adjustments that
artificially increase their income which could very well put
many members of the military in the category of people who will
no longer qualify for SNAP benefits and correspondingly their
children for free lunches.
Have any provisions been made by the agency or the
administration to address these concerns of military families?
Mr. LIPPS. Congresswoman, we don't have statutory authority
to treat them differently. I'm aware of the basic housing
allowance issue and I know that Members of Congress are aware
of that and should they want to work on that issue again the
agency will be happy to provide technical assistance--
Ms. WILD. So the answer to that is no.
Mr. LIPPS.--to address that.
Ms. WILD. Okay. Mr. Lipps, it is estimated that 12 percent
of households in Pennsylvania which is where I am from would
lose their SNAP benefits as a result of this proposed rule.
In my home, the Lehigh Valley of Pennsylvania, 50 percent
of the children are eligible to receive free school meals. Many
children would lose their access to school meals as a result of
this rule. It risks their health and their wellbeing and it is
imperative the USDA is transparent with the public about how
the rule will harm children and families.
And yet, on numerous occasions when Chairman Scott has sent
letters to the department or had his staff request
documentation of the department's analysis of the proposed
rules impact on school meals, he was met with resistance.
We are talking about a single document in a phone call with
Committee staff and USDA Assistant Secretary Ken Barbic on
October 7th.
The Committee again requested that this document be made
available to the Committee in advance of our hearing no later
than October 11 and yet, we didn't get this information until
late yesterday afternoon even though the information has been
available since the rule was published in July. Can you account
for that?
Mr. LIPPS. Yes, Congresswoman. I talked about this earlier.
This informational analysis did not exist at the time of that
phone call. We provided the best information that we had.
We have since produced the analysis and provided it both to
the Chairman and to the public as quickly as we could.
Ms. WILD. When did the informational analysis become
available?
Mr. LIPPS. It became analysis for publication yesterday
when we released it.
Ms. WILD. That wasn't my question. When did the analysis
become available?
Mr. LIPPS. It became available yesterday. I'm not sure I
understand what your question is.
Ms. WILD. Well, you said for publication. Was there some
sort of process?
Mr. LIPPS. We have a clearance process for all the
documents that come out of the agency.
Ms. WILD. So when was the information made available to the
agency? Not when was the process--
Mr. LIPPS. Well, the agency--
Ms. WILD.--gone through.
Mr. LIPPS. Sorry for interrupting. The agency created the
document so the analysis was run after the request from the
Chairman.
Ms. WILD. Now, Mr. Lipps, when my colleague Mrs. Lee asked
you a question a little while ago, you responded that Congress
sets the eligibility rules.
And yet Congress also established broad based categorical
eligibility in the 2008 Farm Bill so that more children could
be eligible for free school meals.
And yet the department is not implementing the broad based
categorical eligibility as dictated by Congress, is it?
Mr. LIPPS. Congresswoman, I'm not sure that's accurate.
Congress created categorical eligibility which will remain
after our rule is implemented. Broad based categorical
eligibility was implemented by the states and this agency and
not by Congress.
We will continue to allow categorical eligibility which is
prescribed in statute.
Ms. WILD. Well, during the 2018 Farm Bill reauthorization,
House Republicans included a provision to gut SNAP broad based
categorical eligibility in their bill. That proposal was
stripped from the version of the bill signed into law.
But now the department is proposing changes to categorical
eligibility that would be substantially more harmful than those
changes that Congress rejected in the 2018 Farm Bill
authorization. Isn't that true?
Mr. LIPPS. The department proposed these changes prior to
consideration of the 2018 Farm Bill. Congress took no action
with regard to the intent of the agency to move forward with
that and the agency continues to move forward to address
integrity issues that have been called out by the Government
Accountability Office, the Office of Inspector General and
continue to create negative news media reports on a very
important program.
Ms. WILD. Thank you.
Chairwoman SCHRIER. I would like to recognize my colleague,
Ms. Jayapal from Washington State for 5 minutes.
Ms. JAYAPAL. Thank you, Madam Chair, and, Mr. Lipps, thank
you for being here. Let me just be clear. Last year Congress
passed the 2018 Farm Bill which expressly preserved broad based
categorical eligibility for SNAP benefits, rejecting the
proposal that my colleague Ms. Wild talked about, a proposed
cut.
And the bill received the most votes of any farm bill in
the history. 369 votes, only 47 people voted against it. So I
consider this rule with its lack of process and transparency a
complete end run around Congress.
And here is what I can't figure out. I can't figure out why
the administration is pushing forward a proposal that takes
away nutrition assistance from extremely low-income families. I
don't think that is what the vast majority of the American
people want.
This Trump Administration rule is cruel to hungry kids who
need our help for food. We are not talking about other things,
we are talking about food. Basic nutrition assistance.
So, Mr. Lipps, can you tell me roughly what 130 percent of
Federal poverty level is because that is the qualification here
we are talking about?
Mr. LIPPS. Sure. It depends on the number of family
members, Congresswoman.
Ms. JAYAPAL. Okay. So I am going to say it is about
$21,000.
Mr. LIPPS. Sounds right.
Ms. JAYAPAL. And I am using the generally accepted
statistic. In my home State of Washington, our minimum wage is
$12 an hour because we have very strong worker protections and
a great state legislature.
If you are working full time, that comes out to just under
$25,000 a year which is above the threshold for eligibility for
SNAP benefits and thus for free school meals.
Your agency has acknowledged in the past that the typical
family will spend more than half of that amount, $13,000 on
child-related costs alone.
Is it the goal of the administration to take away free
school meals for families just over 130 percent of the poverty
level?
Mr. LIPPS. Congresswoman, I'm not sure you were here
earlier when we talked about the objection--
Ms. JAYAPAL. Actually I have been here for most of the
hearing, Mr. Lipps. I think I have heard your answers. I am
going to ask you the question again.
Is it the goal of your agency to take away free school
meals for families just over 130 percent of the poverty level?
Mr. LIPPS. Let me tell you our objectives because that's
not it. Congress sets that 130 percent level in statute. The
agency does not set it. We do not have the ability to change
that.
Ms. JAYAPAL. You are changing a rule that states have
implemented, that will have impact on decisions that states
have made across the country that Congress has made clear we
want to preserve that ability for states to do this so that
hungry kids can get food.
So I am just going to ask you one more time and it is a yes
or no question. Is it the goal of the administration to take
away free school meals for families just over 130 percent of
the poverty line?
Mr. LIPPS. No.
Ms. JAYAPAL. Okay. Great. Well, then I would suggest
pulling back on this rule. Since July this Committee has been
asking for an analysis of how your proposed rule would impact
school meals.
I have heard the arguments of when you released this. They
don't really make sense to me frankly. 20, less than 24 hours
before the hearing you provide us with this analysis.
Can you tell us by your own estimation how much money does
the administration save by cutting off 1 million children from
free school meals as you have proposed?
Mr. LIPPS. Congresswoman, as we noted, we--the estimate is
that 96 percent of those students will continue to qualify for
free or reduced priced meals--
Ms. JAYAPAL. How much does it cost? How much money--
Mr. LIPPS.--so there is not an estimate of--
Ms. JAYAPAL.--will the administration save?
Mr. LIPPS.--of savings.
Ms. JAYAPAL. How much?
Mr. LIPPS. The estimate suggests that 96 percent of those
will continue to qualify so there would note be a savings
associated with them not receiving it.
Ms. JAYAPAL. Let me tell you what the estimate is. It is
$270 million over five years based on the data. So you are
right.
Now let us look at the costs. How much has USDA estimated
administrative costs will rise as a result of your proposed
rule?
Mr. LIPPS. I don't know that offhand, Congresswoman.
Ms. JAYAPAL. Well, let me tell you what it is, Deputy
Undersecretary Lipps.
Mr. LIPPS. Sure.
Ms. JAYAPAL. I wish you did know this. It is your agency
and your department and your rule.
The administration estimated $2 billion over 5 years in the
proposed rule. So the overhead costs of the program overall
will go up by $2 billion by your own estimation.
And as you write in the proposed rule released last night,
this is a quote. Does not account for potential state and local
administrative costs incurred due to collecting and processing
household applications for children no longer categorically
eligible.
Mr. Lipps, setting aside administrative costs, can you tell
me how $270 million over 5 years compares to the CBO's estimate
of the total cost of the Republican tax bill that was passed in
2017?
Mr. LIPPS. Congresswoman, I would note that the costs that
you noted earlier with regard to the regulatory impact analysis
of the rule and not this informational analysis.
Ms. JAYAPAL. Do you know how the $270 million over 5 years
compares to the CBO's estimate of the total cost of the
Republican tax bill passed in 2017?
Mr. LIPPS. I'm not an expert on that, Congresswoman.
Ms. JAYAPAL. Well, let me tell you, my time has expired.
CBO estimated the cost of the tax bill to be $1.9 trillion over
10 years, Mr. Lipps. Thank you very much. I yield back, Madam
Chair.
Chairwoman SCHRIER. Thank you. I would like to recognize my
colleague Mr. Keller from Pennsylvania for 5 minutes.
Mr. KELLER. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Deputy
Secretary Lipps for being here. I know this has been asked many
times so please bear with me but I just want to make sure that
it is correct for the record.
And that is it is my understanding or let me just ask this
to make the record clear. Is there any attempt by the USDA to
limit access to benefits by qualified individuals in other--
excuse me, in either the SNAP or school meal program?
Mr. LIPPS. No, sir.
Mr. KELLER. There is not. Because I look at the title here
on the thing before I got the Subcommittee it says examining
the USDA's proposed cuts to the free school meals. That is what
it says on our paper.
So you don't currently or the rules will not change any
eligibility for any SNAP or school meal program?
Mr. LIPPS. That's correct.
Mr. KELLER. That is set by Congress?
Mr. LIPPS. Yes, sir.
Mr. KELLER. Okay. So when I look at this, the WIC programs
and we are in school nutrition, child nutrition and WIC program
was last reauthorized in 2010, is that correct?
Mr. LIPPS. That's correct.
Mr. KELLER. That is correct. Okay. This is the thing that I
want to say and this is coming from an individual, I am not
going to tell a story about people I represent or anecdotal
stories.
This is going to be a story about a kid that lived it. And
I am going to tell you it is not fun to be hungry as a child. I
had that childhood.
And, you know, when we look at that there is nobody that
wants to make or have anybody be hungry. I can't imagine what
my parents went through knowing that their children were
hungry. So to say that the administration or anybody else wants
to change those guidelines, I think is just outrageous.
So looking at this, you know, we are having a debate here
on taking the Committee's valuable time on a proposed SNAP
program which falls under the jurisdiction of the Agriculture
Committees, is that correct?
Mr. LIPPS. Yes, sir.
Mr. KELLER. So our jurisdiction in this Committee would be
for the school nutrition, the school lunch programs and so
forth, correct?
Mr. LIPPS. Correct.
Mr. KELLER. So I would suggest to my colleagues rather than
trying to prescribe motives or ascribe motive to what the
administration is trying to do to make sure things are more
equitable and the help is getting to where it needs to go, if
we don't agree with the guidelines and think more people need
help, then I would charge this Committee with looking into
having hearings on what we should be doing to change those
guidelines. Because if we were to change the guidelines, you
would enforce those new guidelines?
Mr. LIPPS. Yes, sir, without a doubt.
Mr. KELLER. Okay. So again, the administration is not
concerned with what the guidelines are or trying to eliminate
anybody from getting help that needs help.
Mr. LIPPS. That's correct.
Mr. KELLER. Okay. So again I just want to say this one more
time. If we are concerned about that, which we all should be
making sure that people get the help they need, we as Americans
want to do that.
So I would say to this Committee, let's spend our time
having hearings on what we should be doing to make sure those
guidelines are reviewed and the people that get the help get
the help rather than trying to attribute some kind of negative
motive to somebody that is just trying to do the job Congress
gave them to do. So I yield back.
Mr. LIPPS. Thank you.
Chairwoman SCHRIER. As a point of privilege, I want to
clarify that the impact on the school meal program is within
the jurisdiction of this Committee.
And I recognize Dr. Adams from North Carolina for 5
minutes.
Ms. ADAMS. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for--to the
witness today for your testimony.
The administration is circumventing congressional intent
which was made clear in the 2018 Farm Bill to roll back
categorical eligibility and take food assistance away from
children, families, veterans, disabled, and older Americans.
More than 98,000 North Carolinians, including 38--35,000
North Carolina children would lose food assistance and school
meals if this flexibility is eliminated.
Mecklenburg County, my district, we have more than 10,000
people, almost half of which are children who would lose access
to food assistance and that is without counting for the
children at risk of losing lunch and breakfast due to the
impact of this rule on the community eligibility provision. So,
Mr. Lipps, the families and children that your proposal would
take away, take food away from, are very low income, making
ends meet on as little as $28,000 for a family of three.
One of the best resources that a family could hope to rely
on when their wages are so low is a little savings for an
emergency like when the car breaks down or their child needs to
go to the doctor, wouldn't you agree with that?
Mr. LIPPS. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. ADAMS. So but this rule wouldn't just penalize families
if they receive a modest raise of $1 per hour in a low wage
job. It would penalize them for saving even a few dollars for
that kind of emergency.
So my question, in fact the administration's own estimates
show that about half of the households who would lose SNAP
under this rule would do so as a result of the so called asset
test not the income test. Isn't that right?
Mr. LIPPS. Yes, ma'am, that's correct.
Ms. ADAMS. Okay. So the 1.7 million households who would
lose SNAP are nearly evenly split between those that failed the
Federal SNAP income test and those that fail the Federal
resource test.
So this would mean that most families wouldn't save more
than $2,250 without jeopardizing their children's access to
school meals. So how does this rule then help families save for
their children's future when they are forced to choose between
saving for tomorrow or making sure that their kids have enough
to eat today?
Mr. LIPPS. Congresswoman, I appreciate your passion for
these programs and I assure you that we share that. I
acknowledged the issues that you raise.
As we have talked about earlier, Congress sets those asset
tests in the statute. It's an important discussion. I know that
raising those was considered in the 2018 Farm Bill and not
adopted.
But it is an important discussion and if the committee of
jurisdiction wants to look at modifying those, the agency is
certainly willing to provide technical assistance on doing
that.
Ms. ADAMS. But you, would you make any recommendations
without the Committee? I mean, we have passed the Farm Bill. I
had the opportunity to sit on the Committee which I am Vice
Chair of that Committee. But also in terms of settling that
bill, so what would you say to that?
Mr. LIPPS. Congresswoman, I can't alone endorse new policy
but I will say as a part of that process that the
administration issued a statement of administrative policy in
support of the bill that made a number of changes including
those that raised the asset test as noting that how these
programs intersect with the individuals that you are talking
about who often do struggle is very important to ensure that we
give them the resources that they need to move forward.
Ms. ADAMS. Okay. Madam Chair, I would like to enter 2
letters into the record. One from the National Education
Association and 23 faith based organizations. I would like to
enter those for the record.
Chairwoman SCHRIER. Without objection.
Ms. ADAMS. Thank you. And, Madam Chair, I will yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. LIPPS. Thank you.
Chairwoman SCHRIER. Seeing as there are no more questions,
I want to remind my colleagues that pursuant to, oh, excuse me.
I want to 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 but please recognize that years
from now that link may no longer work.
Again, I want to thank Mr. Lipps for his participation
today. What we have heard is very valuable. Members of this
Committee may have additional questions for you and we ask you,
Mr. Lipps, to please respond to those questions in writing. The
hearing record will be held open for 14 days in order to
receive those responses.
I remind my colleagues that pursuant to Committee practice,
witness questions for the hearing must be submitted to the
Majority Committee staff or Committee Clerk within 7 days. The
questions submitted must address the subject of the hearing.
I now recognize the distinguished Ranking Member Mr. Comer
for his closing statement.
Mr. COMER. Thank you. And thank you, Mr. Lipps, for coming
here today. I understand it has been a very long day for you
and I appreciate your time and patience in answering all of our
questions.
Mr. LIPPS. Thank you.
Mr. COMER. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify the
impact of this proposed rule and highlight its benefits to the
tax payers and program participants even though the proposed
BBCE rule falls under the Agriculture Committees jurisdiction.
I believe the rule will strengthen integrity in the SNAP
program by closing an unintended loophole that has allowed some
states to extend food stamp eligibility to millions of people
who do not qualify while taking away resources meant for the
truly needy.
My colleagues have criticized the rule and cited the impact
on school meal programs as one reason they oppose. However, as
many of my colleagues have discussed today and you have
confirmed, under this rule no child who statutorily qualifies
for a free or reduced price meal will lose access to their
meal.
If my colleagues are interested in exploring who actually
qualifies for a free or reduced price lunch, we are happy to
engage in a conversation around the reauthorization of the
child nutrition programs.
So the proposed changes in the rule will help prevent fraud
and abuse within the SNAP program, fraud that cost tax payers
nearly $64 billion in 2019 and not prevent one eligible child
from receiving a school meal. That sounds like a good policy to
me and something we should all support.
Before I yield, I ask unanimous consent for two letters to
be submitted to the record. They are both comments that were
submitted to USDA on the proposed BBCE rule.
Chairwoman SCHRIER. Without objection.
Mr. COMER. Thank you. And I yield back.
Chairwoman SCHRIER. Thank you. I now recognize myself for
the purpose of making my closing statement.
Mr. Lipps, thank you again for being here to discuss the
USDA's proposed changes to SNAP eligibility and free school
meals.
As we discussed, the departments proposed rule will have
a--will have devastating consequences for millions of our
Nation's children and families.
The departments own analysis found that the proposed rule
will bar nearly a million children from qualifying
automatically for free school meals that they need to be
healthy.
When children are hungry, they cannot learn and grow and at
a time when millions of children do not have reliable access to
food, this proposed SNAP rule will only exacerbate our Nation's
food insecurity crisis.
Mr. Lipps, as I did during your last appearance before this
Committee, I urge you to recommit fulfilling the Food and
Nutrition Services mission to increase food security and reduce
hunger by providing children and low income people access to
nutritious food.
The only sensible step forward is to rescind this proposal
and preserve access to automatic free school meals for nearly a
million children.
We owe it to the next generation to make sure they are
prepared to learn and can reach their full potential.
If there is no further business, I would like to wish our
counsel, Janice Nsor, a happy birthday.
And without objection the Subcommittee stands adjourned.
Mr. LIPPS. Thank you.
[Additional submissions by Chairwoman Bonamici follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Additional submissions by Mr. Comer follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Additional submissions by Ms. Fudge follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Additional submissions by Ms. Hayes follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Additional submissions by Mrs. Lee follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Additional submissions by Mr. Thompson follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
FNS Quality Control Process for SNAP Error Rate: https://
www.oversight.gov/sites/default/files/oig-reports/27601-0002-
41.pdf
[Additional submissions by Mr. Trone follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Questions submitted for the record and their responses
follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Whereupon, at 4:36 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]