[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2020
_______________________________________________________________________
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
___________________________________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG
ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES
SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia, Chairman
ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine ROBERT B. ADHERHOLT, Alabama
MARK POCAN, Wisconsin ANDY HARRIS, Maryland
BARBARA LEE, California JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan
BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
NOTE: Under committee rules, Mrs. Lowey, as chairwoman of the full
committee, and Ms. Granger, as ranking minority member of the full
committee, are authorized to sit as members of all subcommittees.
Martha Foley, Diem-Linh Jones, Joseph Layman,
Justin Masucci, Perry Yates, and Randall Staples
Subcommittee Staff
___________________________________
PART 3
Page
International Food Assistance Programs at USDA and
USAID....................... 1
Food and Nutrition Service: Policy and Program
Overview........................ 207
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
___________________________________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
39-606 WASHINGTON : 2020
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
NITA M. LOWEY, New York, Chairwoman
MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio KAY GRANGER, Texas
PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky
JOSE E. SERRANO, New York ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama
ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho
DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina JOHN R. CARTER, Texas
LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California KEN CALVERT, California
SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia TOM COLE, Oklahoma
BARBARA LEE, California MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota TOM GRAVES, Georgia
TIM RYAN, Ohio STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas
C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida CHUCK FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee
HENRY CUELLAR, Texas JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington
CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio
MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois ANDY HARRIS, Maryland
DEREK KILMER, Washington MARTHA ROBY, Alabama
MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada
GRACE MENG, New York CHRIS STEWART, Utah
MARK POCAN, Wisconsin STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi
KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
PETE AGUILAR, California JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan
LOIS FRANKEL, Florida JOHN H. RUTHERFORD, Florida
CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois WILL HURD, Texas
BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey
BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan
NORMA J. TORRES, California
CHARLIE CRIST, Florida
ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
ED CASE, Hawaii
Shalanda Young, Clerk and Staff Director
(ii)
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2020
----------
Wednesday, September 25, 2019.
INTERNATIONAL FOOD ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS AT USDA AND USAID
WITNESSES
TREY HICKS, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF FOOD FOR PEACE, U.S. AGENCY FOR
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
KEN ISLEY, ADMINISTRATOR, FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bishop. The subcommittee will come to order.
Let me say good morning and welcome to today's hearing.
This morning, we are examining the international food
assistance programs that are funded by this subcommittee.
Within USDA, food assistance and agricultural development are
provided by the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education
and Child Nutrition Program and the Food for Progress program.
Within USAID, food assistance funding is provided by the Food
for Peace title II program.
We have two witnesses to help us understand all the aspects
of these programs, from the 30,000-foot view of strategic
planning to the on-the-ground realities of project execution.
I would like to welcome Ken Isley, the Administrator of the
Foreign Agriculture Service at USDA, and Trey Hicks, Director
of the Office of Food for Peace at USAID. I want to welcome
both of you to our subcommittee. These programs under each of
your purview are multifaceted, and they cover much more than
just food assistance and agricultural development. We look
forward to hearing about what you do, how you do it, and how we
can help you to achieve your future goals.
I thank both of you for being here. I look forward to a
robust discussion about these very, very important programs.
Now, before we begin, I recognize that we are here this
morning to discuss the operations and the implementation of
USDA and USAID international food assistance programs, but I
would be remiss if I did not bring up the lack of support for
these programs from the current administration.
As I have said before, the administration's proposed
elimination of these programs is shortsighted, and it ignores
their value as an essential tool for our country's diplomacy.
That is why the House mark rejects the proposed elimination and
instead funds McGovern-Dole and Food for Peace at $2 billion,
well above last year's enacted level.
Now, moving on, while the various goals for each of these
programs may differ, their overall mission is the same:
alleviate hunger, improve food security around the world. It is
my hope that today's discussion will help shed light on how
these programs achieve their missions, what are the various
challenges they face, and how you measure success.
Additionally, while, today, we are discussing food
assistance and these programs, they are not the only tools the
United States has at its disposal for combating food insecurity
around the globe. I am also interested in how these programs
fit within a broader national strategy for international food
assistance.
Our farmers, our ranchers, our producers don't just feed
Americans. We help feed the world. The commodities that we send
abroad are a gift from the American people, and it is our duty
to ensure this generosity is treated with great care to make
the most positive impact around the world that we can possibly
make.
I want to thank our witnesses for being with us today. I
look forward to today's discussion.
Now let me ask our distinguished ranking member, Mr.
Fortenberry, if he has any opening remarks.
Or should I just recognize him for some opening remarks?
Mr. Fortenberry. The answer is yes, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for recognizing me and for holding
this important hearing.
The chairman and I discussed the possibility of bringing in
the directors of the multiple food assistance programs and
policies that we have across our government, and so I think I
am grateful to you all for coming today but really especially
grateful for the chairman's leadership in this regard.
I don't think this is a well-understood space by the
American people, and yet it is essential to well-being
throughout the world. So, again, thank you for coming, your
leadership.
I think it is important at the start of the hearing to
point out the United States does lead the world, both in terms
of generosity and outreach. That includes agricultural and
humanitarian assistance. I think it is not only necessary to
point that out because it compels us to examine how effective
these programs are but also the underlying premise.
Despite any temporary disagreement with another nation or
trade dispute, countries all around the world turn to us
because of our leadership and capacity and generosity.
America's ability to help other people in need and the
generosity of the people that we serve are really a hallmark of
who we are. It marks the character of us as a Nation.
Regarding international food assistance, many of us have
worked in this space for a very long time and we often hear
that this is actually 1 percent, less than 1 percent of the
overall Federal budget, but for our Appropriations Committee,
it represents 8 percent. So it is a significant portion of what
we are dealing with and, therefore, a priority.
So, as a part of our oversight of these programs, we have
to do two things at once: Look at the management of the
programs, but also--and this is very important--how do we also
think innovatively? How do we attack the sources of structural
poverty and overcome misery in the world so that we can create
stability in other countries and even the possibility of
flourishing for communities and other persons?
It is about possibilities, the possibilities of innovation
and new approaches, that we also have to have a marked focus on
as a part of our oversight efforts.
This hearing is a great way for us to step back and provide
some reflection on just what the purpose of these programs are,
how successful they are, but also what are the metrics? How do
we measure outcomes to meet these fundamental goals? Also, how
are they reconcilable with other programs? Are we unnecessarily
duplicating, why one program is embedded in one agency versus
another and how those agencies collaborate?
Our ultimate goal is to, again, create the conditions in
which persons can have lives filled with opportunity and hope
and that we can do our part to build more just and good
societies because, again, that is who we are. That is a
humanitarian impulse, but it is also critical to international
stability and, therefore, our own security.
I believe this vision and goal should continue to be a part
of the evolvement--evolving of our entire foreign policy and
defense policy in Congress. They are inextricably intertwined.
With that, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much again for
holding this committee.
And I yield back.
Mr. Bishop. Let me now recognize our distinguished guests
for brief oral statements, and then we will proceed with
questions.
Without objection, gentlemen, your entire written
testimonies will be included in the record, and you may proceed
in any order which you may decide to.
Mr. Isley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning, Mr.
Chairman and members of the subcommittee.
I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the international
food assistance programs implemented by USDA. Before I address
this topic, however, I first want to thank the subcommittee for
your continued support of my agency, the Foreign Agricultural
Service. USDA administers three international food assistance
programs: the Food for Progress Program, the McGovern-Dole
Program, and a subset of that being the Local and Regional Food
Aid Procurement Program.
Food for Progress has two principal objectives: to improve
agricultural productivity in developing countries and emerging
democracies without negatively impacting the export of U.S.
commodities and to expand trade in agricultural products.
Donated U.S. commodities are shipped to recipient countries and
sold on the local market. The proceeds are used to support
agricultural and infrastructure capacity-building projects,
project implementers, including Private Voluntary Organizations
(POVs), foreign governments, universities, and
intergovernmental organizations.
At the end of fiscal year 2018, there were 52 active Food
for Progress projects valued at over $1 billion. For fiscal
year 2019, USDA announced preliminary allocations for seven
multiyear projects in Africa, Asia, and Central America,
totaling more than $140 million. As an example, a Food for
Progress project in East Timor helps support the export of
local crops and creates economic opportunities for subsistence
farmers. The project's first harvest of fair-trade certified
coffee will commence in 2019 with more than 19 tons headed for
international buyers, including many U.S. importers.
McGovern-Dole provides school meals and nutrition programs
for school-aged children, women, and infants in countries with
high food insecurity. Projects are implemented by PVOs and
international organizations. The program's statutory objectives
include reducing hunger, improving literacy and primary
education, and carrying out maternal, infant, and child
nutrition programs.
McGovern-Dole projects are designed to graduate from USDA
assistance. For fiscal year 2019, USDA announced preliminary
funding allocations for nine proposals in Africa, Asia, Central
America, and the Caribbean valued over $190 million. McGovern-
Dole projects reached over 4.3 million beneficiaries in fiscal
year 2018. As an example, in 2018, Kenya became the first
country in Africa to transition all schools previously
supported by McGovern-Dole to a government-supported national
school meal program.
First authorized in the 2014 farm bill, the Local and
Regional Procurement Program (LRP) provides a complimentary
mechanism for delivering international food assistance.
Including local commodities, such as fruits and vegetables,
improves the taste of nutritious meals, strengthens supply
chains, and boosts local support for sustainability.
In fiscal year 2019, USDA LRP projects are estimated to
reach more than 105,000 children in McGovern-Dole schools. As
an example, a recent LRP project incorporated sweet potatoes
into school meals in Mozambique.
From selecting countries and priorities to reviewing
proposals, monitoring agreements, evaluating project
performance, and reporting progress, Foreign Agricultural
Service (FAS) staff coordinate with colleagues across USDA and
the U.S. Government, particularly USAID, as well as with
donors, ag industry stakeholders, implementing partners, U.S.
land grant universities, and recipients.
Collaboration does not just occur in Washington, D.C. We
also work closely with our overseas posts to select priority
countries and themes for food assistance and to implement the
programs.
And, last, collecting evidence on effectiveness of food aid
is an important part of the administration of these programs.
In recent years, FAS has strengthened our monitoring and
evaluation systems. We adhere to a results-oriented management
approach. We invest in independent research of our learning
agendas, which serve as five-year strategies used to prioritize
areas to improve the programs. To share our research and to
fulfill our strong commitment to transparency, we publicly post
evaluations of food aid projects implemented by FAS on USAID's
public portal for monitoring and evaluation.
Thank you, again, for the opportunity to testify, and I
look forward to addressing your questions.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.007
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Isley.
Mr. Hicks.
Mr. Hicks. Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Fortenberry,
other members of the subcommittee, thank you for the invitation
to speak with you today about international food assistance
programs.
My name is Trey Hicks, and I am the Director of the Office
of Food for Peace, the world's largest provider of
international food assistance. Last year, we reached 76 million
people in 59 countries with lifesaving aid. We do this because
alleviating global hunger represents the best of America's
generosity and goodwill. It is also crucial to our national
security. Where hunger persists, instability grows. Our efforts
help build a more stable world and ensure people have the
chance to lead more productive lives.
More than 80 percent of our programs respond to
humanitarian crises by providing food assistance to people
affected by conflict and natural disasters. We also have
multiyear development programs that address the root causes of
hunger, such as drought, to build resilience and food security
among vulnerable populations. This helps people, equip people
with the knowledge and tools to feed themselves and reduce the
need for future international assistance.
There are four main ways that the U.S.A. provides life-
saving food assistance: number one, food growing in the United
States through title II; number two, food grown locally or
regionally; number 3, through food vouchers; and, finally,
number four, through money that helps families buy food on
local markets.
Many times and often, there is a combination of these
legalities that we use for each and every response based on the
contexts unique to those responses. For today's testimony, I
will focus on U.S. in-kind food assistance, food bought with
title II funds and authorized in the Food for Peace Act, which
this subcommittee has jurisdiction over. The other modalities
are primarily provided through the International Disaster
Assistance or development assistance funds authorized under the
Foreign Assistance Act.
When we purchase and deliver U.S. commodities, we work with
two types of partners: nongovernmental organizations, like
Catholic Relief Services, and international organizations, like
the World Food Program. These partners choose from a set of
approved U.S. commodities, and then Food for Peace evaluates
the offers and buys the commodities on the open market through
the U.S. Department of Agriculture. After that, cargo is
shipped from a U.S. port to the recipient country. Upon
arrival, the food goes to the people in greatest need: children
under five; pregnant and lactating women; the elderly; and
other vulnerable populations.
Our help is needed now more than ever. For the first time
in decades, the number of hungry people is rising. More than
820 million people do not have enough food to eat. That is one
in every nine people on the planet. Conflict is the largest
factor and compounded by natural disasters like drought. As a
result, today's crises in places like Syria, South Sudan,
Venezuela, and Yemen, they are bigger. They last longer. They
are more complex.
In partnership with Congress, we must constantly find ways
to be more coordinated, creative, and efficient in our
responses.
In Yemen, conflict has left nearly 17 million people in
urgent need of food assistance, more than the total population
of both Georgia and Nebraska combined. If the situation gets
worse, famine may occur. This school year, USDA has helped feed
11 million people in Yemen by providing food assistance
including 450,000 metric tons of food. We have provided wheat,
beans, and vegetable oil from the United States and are saving
lives every single day.
Additionally, 1 million Rohingya refugees live in
Bangladesh, where they have formed the world's largest refugee
settlement after fleeing violence in Burma. The U.S. helps feed
roughly 700,000 Rohingya every year. One of the ways we help is
providing American-made therapeutic food. This peanut-based
paste is very effective. If a child is malnourished, parents
take them to a health center where they feed their children a
packet a day and watch them grow healthy and strong.
I was in Bangladesh earlier this year, and I saw at one
clinic a white board that tracked how many kids that were help
at that clinic. Two years ago, this clinic alone was treating
1,000 malnourished kids a month. Today, they are down to 200.
Our program is making a difference.
USAID does not do this work alone. As Administrator Mark
Green has said, tackling hunger requires an all-hands-on-deck
approach. We work alongside America's farmers, mariners,
affected governments, other donors, NGOs, and the international
community. We also coordinate within the U.S. Government. We
work with the State Department's Bureau of Population, Refugee,
and Migration on overseas refugee issues. The U.S. Department
of Agriculture helps us procure title II food. Our development
activities are an essential component of the Feed the Future
initiative, led by USAID's Bureau for Food Security. Most
frequently, we work alongside the Office of U.S. Foreign
Disaster Assistance, responding to humanitarian emergencies. We
provide food while they provide other needs, like shelter,
medical care, and water.
The forthcoming USAID Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance
will bring our offices together, creating a more strategic,
seamless approach to delivering both food and nonfood in
humanitarian crises.
In our 65 years, Food for Peace has helped to end hunger
for more than 4 billion people. That legacy would not have been
possible without congressional support, including from this
subcommittee.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I look
forward to your questions.
GLOBAL FOOD INSECURITY CHALLENGES
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, both of you.
Let me just make an announcement. Our chairwoman, Mrs.
Lowey, we anticipate her arrival at any moment, and while we
will begin our questioning, when she comes, I will give her the
respect of allowing her to make some opening statement at her
pleasure. But let me begin the questions.
Mr. Isley, Mr. Hicks, your agencies have provided food
assistance around the world for more than 50 years. Can you
each take a moment to give us a sense of the global picture of
food insecurity today and then just tell us, in that context,
what the biggest challenges are that face both of your
programs?
And since I have but 5 minutes, I would like for both of
you. As I understand it, the common mission that you have of
alleviating hunger and improving food insecurity provides
different ways of achieving the mission, but the largest cost
driver for both of you is transportation. So could you also
just take a moment to discuss how your programs are addressing
the cost drivers and how the FAS and USAID work together to
achieve efficiencies in those areas and what challenges remain?
Mr. Hicks. Excellent question.
It is something that we think every day about some of these
challenges on the cost drivers. Overall, there are over a
hundred million people around the world that require emergency
food assistance, and we are feeding about 76 million of those.
It is a huge effort. When it comes to the landscape, we are
increasingly responding to very complex political crises where
there is conflict; there is war. It is becoming increasingly
difficult to get food to the people that need it most.
When it comes to the transportation, we do work very
closely with USDA and when it comes to all the pieces of
getting the food from the U.S. ports to the beneficiary. And we
are constantly looking for efficiencies. So, for example, we
have a pilot program tracking the commodities using quick
reference codes just to have an easier way to make sure that
the bags are getting to where they need to go in each step of
the process as one example.
But every single dollar we save in efficiencies for
transportation, for example, it is another dollar we can feed
right back into the program and feed more people. So it is
something we take seriously. We look at it every day.
Mr. Isley. Okay. Yeah.
Mr. Chairman, and to address the first part of your
question, there certainly is not a lack of opportunities in the
world in terms of these programs and our ability to select
priority countries and the number of proposals we receive to
actually enact the programs.
In terms of challenges, let me address them separately,
depending on the program.
In Food for Progress, one of our key challenges is to meet
the 70 percent cost recovery requirement as we monetize the
commodities. This can be challenging in countries where some of
the U.S. commodities aren't as price-competitive and also when
you take into account the shipping costs that we incur to get
the commodities to the country to monetize.
Also for us--and it highlights your issue on
transportation--we deal in Food for Progress with a $40 million
transportation cap that has been flat for over a decade. Now
this subcommittee did appropriate an additional $6 million for
transportation in fiscal year 2019, which will provide us more
flexibility.
Both of our programs are subject to U.S. Cargo preference,
which requires at least 50 percent of oceangoing cargo
generated by our programs to be transported by U.S.-flagged,
privately-owned commercial vessels. This requirement increases
our cost of transportation significantly and reduces the amount
of commodities that we are able to supply.
Competition for U.S. vessels is limited with only three
major U.S. carriers participating in the program, and we
estimate those costs are roughly 200 percent higher than the
foreign cargo rates.
Specific to McGovern-Dole, getting host country buy-in is a
significant challenge we have, and actually implementing
programs in very remote locations is a challenge. We are
serious about the graduation requirement and objectives under
this program, and we work hard with those host countries to
ensure that that graduation occurs.
And I would concur with my colleague, Mr. Hicks, on the
close collaboration between USDA and USAID to try to address
these challenges, particularly in cargo preference. Our staff
are meeting constantly to see if there are opportunities to
ship cargo together for our multiple programs and, therefore,
reduce cost.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much.
Perfect timing.
At this time, I would like to recognize Mr. Fortenberry for
any questions that he may like to have in this first round.
IMPROVING PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
So we all agree on the mission and goal. This is, again,
about America's humanitarian impulse. We also help create
stability in far-off places. And that is, again, inextricably
intertwined with national security. So we agree on that.
The broad architectural question, though, here is: Is our
policy response the right construct for this era? Now, what
happens in government is somebody has a good idea, and we
respond to it. It creates a policy and a program that gets
embedded in an institution, the department, then carries a sort
of infrastructure with it into time and those of us who come
along have to pick that up. But, again, we have got to go back
and continue to re-examine, is this the right and best
response? Is your construct the proper one for our modern time
in USDA? Is USAID's construct the proper one?
And you mentioned the merging of the food security office
and the Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance. I think you said
that. So, again, that is an attempt to start to rethink how a
more effective response is necessary in modern time.
So you also mentioned, Director Isley, that you are not
just doing this program embedded in Foreign Agricultural
Service on behalf of Food for Peace, as well as Food for
Progress, or McGovern-Dole, I should say, and Food for
Progress. You are also working with other partners which
include land grant institutions, the agricultural industry
itself, individual donors. Where we sit, again, touching this,
along with many other things, it is important to me for you all
to talk about the full spectrum of activities that are going on
in this space because it ties back to whether or not our policy
construct is the best and most appropriate one and you are
seeing movement to change certain things.
And one other idea before I stop. I will let you answer
that, if you can, briefly. For instance, OPIC, Overseas Private
Investment Corporation, has gone through a new phase of
development which they are shifting to a new model of
development, finance around equity finance. Does this have
implications for Food for Progress? Rather than monetizing a
commodity that then gets--pays for a particular type of
project, can that combine with other private players who will
hold a piece of equity and we can leverage that for 10, 20 more
times the impact?
It is this type of creative thinking, again, that can
provide a new architecture on the mission that we all agree
with. So, I would like to give you a moment to respond to that.
Mr. Isley. Sure. And thank you, Congressman Fortenberry,
for the question.
Similar to USAID, we also are looking at our organizational
structure and are implementing some transformation change, and
we are including these programs in a program area with our
trade promotion programs as well to pick up the full continuum.
These programs don't sit alone and can be very complimentary to
programs that you are fully aware of, like Cochran and Borlaug
and others, to provide educational training and assistance and
coordinate more with our universities.
I always think there is room for creativity in looking at
is there a better way to implement, and it gets down to
communication and coordination. It gets down to having
experienced staff and continuing their development and
expertise and how they interact with all the other providers to
deliver the programs in the most effective and efficient way.
So we are driving that communication, not just with USAID
at the more senior level and at the staff level but across U.S.
Government broadly and getting more embedded with our
implementing partners like World Food Program, like Catholic
Relief Services, and some of the industry partners. Land
O'Lakes is coming up with some creative programs.
Mr. Fortenberry. It would be nice to see an inventory of
all of these components because I think that would be helpful
to give a bigger picture because it is hard to do, particularly
here.
Let me stop right quick.
GLOBAL REVIEW PROCESS
What about the idea, this idea of a country ag leader, a
country ag coordinator--maybe they are embedded in the Foreign
Agricultural Service--particularly in Feed the Future
countries--that then sets up metrics? It is my understanding
that Feed the Country have 50 to a hundred metrics of outcomes.
There really ought to be two, you know. Are we stopping child
stunting and getting to the heart of structural poverty issues?
And, secondly, what we call yield gap analysis, how well are we
doing with the resources that are there?
Again, I am getting ready to run out of time, but I want to
use this opportunity to force us to reflect higher and bigger
about structural changes that actually are consistent with the
mission.
I have talked too much again, Mr. Chairman. I apologize.
So I yield back.
We will come back around.
Mr. Isley. Well, I can just react to that quickly,
Congressman. In terms of our footprint and overseas, we look at
that every single year through a global review process. We
currently have global attaches, Foreign Service officers in 93
posts, in addition to our local employed staff. Some of those
posts serve multiple countries, some of which are implementing
these programs. So we are constantly looking at that. We always
have a lead on the USDA side within each of those posts, and
they coordinate very closely with the USDA or USAID
counterparts and other government officials within those
embassies and consulates.
Mr. Fortenberry. Don't get me wrong. I am very familiar
with the ag attaches, but I am talking about a next level of
leadership and policy.
So thank you.
Mr. Bishop. The gentlelady, Ms. McCollum, is recognized.
POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE RESCISSIONS
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And thank you for holding this hearing here today.
And to my friend, Mr. Fortenberry, as the lead Democrat in
the house that worked or the Global Food Security Act for many,
many years. I was pleased to see that you are here today, the
Food for Peace office on the witness list.
We are here talking about Food for Peace, of course, and
that is the two main types of food assistance under title II
and the market-based assistance authorized under the Global
Food Security Act.
I just want to point out, in 2016, $7.6 billion--excuse
me--7.6 billion people suffered from food undernourishment.
Since then, we know we have had Syria, troubles continue in
South Sudan, Burma, Bangladesh with the Rohingya, and Yemen,
all countries that I visited. And you work in other countries,
too. So we know that that number, it has only done but
increased, and the Emergency Food Security Program, that is
funded under the International Disaster Assistance account
within USAID.
Now I am going to talk about some accounts here, and I have
to do it quick in the amount of time I have. We know the
President zeroed in his budget IDA and Food for Peace. That is
because of this new reprogramming, reorganization, and I
understand you are working with the committee on it.
But in the meantime, until it happens, you need to know
that I am concerned about the potential for future rescissions
and the increasing levels of unobligated fund balances within
IDA and other food assistance accounts. The White House fiscal
year 2020 budget reported an estimated $2 billion, $2 billion
of unobligated balances covered over from fiscal year 2019. And
we know that there is hunger in this world. We know where it
is. While some carryover is expected--I chair the Interior
Committee, and I expect the secretary to have some carryover--
the IDA account has a total funding level of only $4.4 billion
in fiscal year 2019, meaning half of the money was not spent.
Half of the money was not spent to feed hungry people all over
the world.
To address this, the fiscal year 2020 omnibus bill included
report language and bill language stating that the IDA funds
shall be distributed--shall be distributed--within 60 days of
enactment. The fiscal year 2020 House-passed version of the
SFOP shortens this timeline within the bill, and report
language requires that IDA funding be distributed within 30
days. These people are hungry now.
The Senate also has concerns in their SFOP drop, which is
their State and Foreign Operations, and that hasn't been to the
full committee yet, but it has passed through the subcommittee
and that maintains the 60-day language. It requires report
language on strict reporting requirements of unobligated
balances.
So, over the past two fiscal years, the House and the
Senate have been making it perfectly clear, trying to get your
attention, that we when we put taxpayers' dollars towards these
important programs of saving children from starvation and
stunting, that we know that these funds are going to get out
the door.
So, gentlemen, can you explain to me what is going on here?
I am fully supportive of looking at reprogramming,
reorganization, but in the meantime, Congress has appropriated
these funds. People are hungry, malnutrition, and starving, and
half the fund balance has not been accounted for.
Mr. Hicks. So, first of all, thank you for the question.
I think, number one, message well received, loud and clear.
I think, for the way we program, I appreciate your
acknowledgment that some carryover is actually necessary for us
to have a steady flow of a response. So there needs to be some
carryover from year to year, and thank you for acknowledging
that.
Ms. McCollum. But not half.
Mr. Hicks. Correct. So, you know, we are constantly trying
to ensure that we have stability. When a sudden onset like a
Dorian happens, we have to have funds available, and many times
we are in between fiscal years, and these events happen. We
have to have a certain kind of reserve on hold, but, you know,
I know that some of the budgetary language is being worked out.
I assure you whatever is, you know, signed into law we will
faithfully execute.
There is no shortage of hunger around the world. Even if we
piled up every single penny in IDA and in title II and only
used it for food----
Ms. McCollum. I only have a minute. So you are telling me
that half the funding that wasn't spent in fiscal year 2019, it
is ready to go out the door? You can submit to this to the
committee?
Mr. Hicks. So I can only speak to on the food side. The
Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance, we share a portion of
the IDA account with the Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance.
So they have their own budget process. We are not yet merged
into one single Bureau of Humanitarian Assistance. So I can't
speak on behalf of the entire account because, you know, there
are carryovers that are attributed to both offices. So some of
that is food. Some of it is not food. And none of it is title
II, the title II appropriation.
Ms. McCollum. Mr. Chair, I think we should ask for when
this money is going to be spent because, as Mr. Fortenberry
pointed out, there are people very hungry, malnutrition, and,
in some cases, starving.
Thank you.
Mr. Hicks. I am very happy to provide a more detailed
response on kind of the budget flow for the record.
Ms. McCollum. That would be great. Thank you.
Mr. Hicks. Okay.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
Mr. Moolenaar.
PROGRAMMATIC APPROACH UNDER DIFFERING CHALLENGES
Mr. Moolenaar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you both for being here today.
I wanted to ask you both a couple of questions. You talked
a little bit about involvement in conflict areas. You have
talked a little bit about places where there are natural
disasters.
I wonder if you could speak to, you know, kind of how your
approach differs in those kind of scenarios and what are the
kind of the challenges you face in each of those kinds of
situations?
Mr. Isley. Yeah, thank you, Congressman Moolenaar.
The USDA programs are not designed to be the short-term
disaster relief type programs. They are more mid- to long-term
under the McGovern-Dole and the Food for Progress programs. So
we are identifying priority countries with similar criteria but
aren't necessarily implementing in some of the most difficult
countries from a security standpoint, like USAID and others are
more equipped to do, but we are trying to identify those
countries where we can come in and provide assistance when the
appropriate time is right.
And an example of that is like Food for Progress. If you
look at our 2019 award, we did award Venezuela, a subject on
the democratic transition of Venezuela, to go in and provide
capacity-building work to reestablish some of their
agricultural capacity to produce for their own domestic use and
for export and to be an export market for the U.S. as well in
the future.
So we identify countries that are in difficult
circumstances beyond just food security and are able to
implement programs in those geographies to provide medium and
longer term assistance, not immediate disaster relief.
The same way on McGovern-Dole. Obviously, some of these
countries also have the biggest challenges with feeding school-
aged children, and we identify those countries where we can
actually effectively implement these programs and implement 3-
to 5-year projects to try to raise up the ability and deal with
the malnutrition at the school-age level and work with the
governments hand in hand to try to get them to transition into
providing that support directly.
Mr. Moolenaar. So, just as a quick follow up, you mentioned
Venezuela. I did notice that. How do you work in a situation,
what is happening there right now? I mean, are you able to find
partners to work with in Venezuela, or how does that work?
Mr. Isley. Yes, yes, we have.
And it is a partner that has been involved in Venezuela for
quite some time and is also partnering with other organizations
like Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture
(IICA) that we work with routinely in that region and it is
also through our participation in an interagency process. So we
are very involved with State Department, USAID, and others as
we look at the full range of assistance and services we can
provide at the right moment in Venezuela's transition.
Mr. Moolenaar. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Hicks. Sure. So there are basically three scenarios
where Food for Peace operates and responds. Primarily, we are
an emergency response. We look at the need and we meet the need
on the emergency basis, but one type of response would be a
sudden onset kind of like Hurricane Dorian, where there is an
immediate need; there is an immediate disaster, and we need to
quickly move in to get food to help save lives.
We also have more protracted conflict kind of settings,
like in Yemen, like in northeast Nigeria, where it is a
protracted crises, where there isn't a political solution to
the underlying problems that is driving the food insecurity. It
is a long-term, high-risk environment.
And then the third is we have development programs where we
look at countries that have recurrent shocks, like drought, and
we do development programs funded through this committee where
we help communities adapt to those recurrent shocks and get
them on their journey to self-reliance, which is one of the
priorities of Administrator Mark Green, so they don't have to
rely on humanitarian assistance the next time the shock comes
by.
Mr. Moolenaar. Just as a follow up, the World Food Program
with the U.N., how do you coordinate with their efforts?
Mr. Hicks. So we look at every crisis and every activity by
itself, and we make a determination whether or not which
partner is the right partner. And in the cases where the World
Food Program is the best positioned to meet that particular
activity, we will enter into an agreement with them. And it is
a whole process, whether it is going to be title II commodities
or other types of assistance.
But when it comes to how we coordinate on a grander scale,
we are actually on the board of the World Food Program. And
together, with my colleagues from the USDA, we go as the U.S.
delegation where we have the broader kind of strategic
conversations. We also get into their, you know, backyard a
little bit and tell them how they need to clean up their
management issues and better align their accountability with
what our standards and expectations are.
Mr. Moolenaar. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Pocan, please.
USAID PROGRAMS IN GAZA
Mr. Pocan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And thanks both for being here.
If you could also send my greetings to Mark, I would
appreciate it. He comes from my home State. I would say he is
one of my favorite Trump appointees, but I did that when
Commissioner Gottlieb was here, and then he resigned a month
later. So tell mark Green, ``Hey,'' please. I would appreciate
that.
I want to follow up a little bit on the questions about
going to tough areas. So, back in February, we quit going and
doing work in the West Bank in Gaza. And I know that there has
been a lot--1.1 million people are on food assistance; 95 to
100 percent of the water is undrinkable. There was a U.N.
report that said, by next year, Gaza will be unlivable. I just
had a professor in from Gaza who was visiting for a couple of
weeks and said that, just in the last few weeks, they have had
suicide bombings against Hamas police from people who have been
radicalized even further because of the situation there.
My concern is, while we had projects going on there around
food assistance and other areas--also there is a company in my
district that had recently completed a water desalination
project and working on the reservoir. They are shuttered, not
even opened, because the funding went away.
Can you give me an update on, you know, what other projects
have had to be abandoned in that area and what the consequences
are of the fallout from those projects stopping in that area?
Mr. Hicks. So, first of all, you know, I don't have the
fullest of programs that were operating in those areas, but I
am happy to provide the details on not just for our programs
but all of the U.S. aid programs, but the decision and the
policy for West Bank, Gaza, Palestinian territories, they
happen in a different, kind of different level beyond the
humanitarian scope. It is more the diplomatic/strategic kind of
policy, but, you know, as soon as any policy shifts occur, we
are constantly vigilant in assessing needs around the world,
including in that region, and, you know, we will follow. We
always follow where the needs are.
Mr. Pocan. Do we still have any staffing with that mission?
Mr. Hicks. That is not something I have an answer for you
right now, but I can go to the Middle East bureau and provide
you for the record the information.
Mr. Pocan. I would appreciate that.
I think a followup question maybe to then, too, would be
what the situation on the ground, their assessment, since that
assistance has been pulled, again, just because I have gotten
reports of escalation of what is happening in that area. You
know, clearly, this is something that we all should be
concerned of. And, you know, just I am getting varied firsthand
reports including from, I guess, a completed water desalination
plant that can't be opened when you have got undrinkable water.
We have already put all the money in, and we are just not doing
the final step. So I would appreciate it.
PLANS FOR IRAQI AND SYRIAN REFUGEES
Also, in regards to Iraq and Syria and refugees, I really
appreciate all the efforts that we do in this area. However, I
am concerned that there is no plan beyond the immediate. I am
afraid things could spiral downward in the camps and outside
the camps without a plan. So a few questions. What are the
short- and medium-term plans for returns and resettlement of
Iraqi refugees and Syrian internally displaced persons, and how
are we engaging with those governments to ensure resettlement
is safe and there is employment opportunities and functioning
infrastructure, et cetera? And what efforts are there to
develop a comprehensive repatriation plan for the 11,000 people
that are currently in camps in 58 different countries?
Mr. Hicks. So, on the resettlement and repatriation issue,
that is not something that is handled by my office. It is
something that, obviously, affects our work. We do follow, you
know, the changing landscape, you know, but it does present
particular challenges for how we get our assistance, which is
the food side of the equation, how we get our assistance to
folks as they are on the move.
So I don't have--I am not the--it is not our office that
handles that, but, you know, when it comes to the provision of
food, we go where the need is. So, whether they are going to be
internally displaced, resettled back, as long as there is a
food insecurity that we have been able to assess, and we have
access, we are going to be continuously providing food to the
folks with the greatest need.
Mr. Pocan. Okay. I appreciate it.
Any information you could get would be much appreciated. I
know it is a little beyond your scope, but I thought, since you
are here, this is a good opportunity to ask those questions.
And then, finally, I will spend my final 15 seconds, so the
farms in my area--and it is even immediately outside the
district, but a lot of my district residents working at--
provide a lot of good, especially corn-based dry product. We
really appreciate that. Love to have people come and visit
those companies anytime. We would be glad to set up any visits
if anyone is in the area. Give Mark Green a chance to go to a
Badger or Packer game.
Mr. Bishop. With the gentleman's final second, would you
yield to Mr. Fortenberry for that final second?
Mr. Fortenberry. I am intrigued by your question,
particularly regarding the refugee situation in Iraq. I would
urge you--I would like to talk to you privately about this. I
have a northern Iraq security resolution that goes to the heart
of this, went with the Director of the USAID there last year,
along with Sam Brownback. There are some good things happening.
Can we chat off on the side?
Mr. Pocan. Absolutely. Thank you. I appreciate it.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
At this time, I am pleased to yield to the former chairman
of this subcommittee, the gentleman from Alabama who is a big
supporter of both of these programs and has a great history
with them, Mr. Aderholt.
MERGING HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE ACCOUNTS
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It is good to be here, and thanks for your leadership.
And thank you both, guests, for being here today and for
your testimonies.
I want to start out by reiterating a concern that I brought
before this subcommittee many times, and I believe that any
type of proposals to reform or eliminate programs that have
U.S. commodities and cargo preferences be eliminated are ill-
advised. The preferences align with the administration's policy
of America First, and the programs have worked successfully
since the creation of the programs back in the 1950s.
I just like for to you explain, you know, why you believe
these programs, which I think offer in-kind food assistance
that can be very helpful, have once again been proposed for
elimination.
Mr. Hicks. Sure. I am very happy to answer that question.
So the proposal in the budget request would actually take all
humanitarian assistance accounts, whether it is title II,
international disaster assistance, or migration refugee
assistance, and merge them into one new account. So, in effect,
it is not just title II, but it is also the IDA account and the
MRA account that would be eliminated, and this new account
would be stood up where all humanitarian assistance would be
provided under one account. It would be proposed at $6 billion,
and it would do a few things.
Number one, it would maintain the U.S. position as a world
leader on humanitarian assistance. Number two, it would provide
a better flexibility for the program to respond whatever the
conditions are on the ground, without artificially favoring one
type of response over another. Basically, every year, we have a
zero-based budget, where we look at the needs. We look at all
the different types of responses we can have, whether it is
title II or LRP or market-based. And we make the best choice
for each and every response. And what this account would do
would not set artificial requirements to use one or the other
but allow the facts on the ground to inform whether we use
title II.
So, in places like Yemen, there is no local market. There
are no local regional procurements we can make. We have to use
title II commodities. So, you know, when we say we want to
increase flexibility, it is about using whatever is appropriate
for each response. South Sudan, Yemen, they are going to be
primarily title II U.S. in-kind commodity type responses under
the current situation. And I don't see that kind of need for
U.S. commodities changing anytime soon.
Mr. Aderholt. Go ahead.
Mr. Isley. So I would just echo what Director Hicks said.
It is more of the consolidation of these programs within USAID,
with USDA continuing to provide support as needed based on our
expertise and our footprint globally as well, but it addresses
some of the challenges, reduces the duplication, and would
center it all within USAID.
Mr. Aderholt. Well, and I understand that there has to be a
combination of things. I just have seen and when I chaired this
subcommittee, there seemed to be a movement to try to, you
know, eliminate these U.S. Commodity and cargo preferences and
I just--I just want to--I would really hate to see those
completely eliminated because, when we go back home as Members
of Congress and we explain that we are trying to help people--
and I think most Americans around the world want to try to be
helpful, to feed people that are hungry. I don't know of any
American that does not have that thought.
However, there are some--they do have concerns about when
cash is sent over, but when you send American-grown produce
over or some kind of--that is grown and that helps the farmer
here and helps the people over there, it is a lot easier sell
than saying, ``We are just going to send some cash over.'' I
understand that sometimes you have to do that. I understand,
and it needs to be both, but I can tell you if we--it is a lot
easier. I have to sell the American people this is the money
that we, the American taxpayers' dollars.
And so if it is an easier sell--and saying we are not going
to allow farmers to ship their goods and try to help them and
it is a--to me, it is a win-win situation. It helps the
farmers. It helps the shippers, and it helps the people who
receive it.
So I am just saying that it is really--I think you are
treading on very dangerous ground to try to go down that route
because I have so many constituents that red flags go up when
you talk about sending cash or sending money, but if you are
sending some commodities to help feed somebody, then they are
much more likely to say, ``Yes, we want to help.''
So I just tell you that because, like I said, this is the
taxpayers' money that we are spending on this, so I think that
needs to be--I see my time is up.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Cuellar.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
ADDRESSING CENTRAL AMERICAN ISSUES
First of all, to both of you, thank you for the great job
that you all do. I want to see if I can focus on Central
America. That has been an issue for the whole country. I was
just down there with Speaker Pelosi, and we saw the great work
that you all are doing, USAID and the other folks. And you all
have come up with a lot of good work over the years, and we
appreciate what you all do.
You know, the bottom line is, as you have, folks coming in
from Central American, we have to look at the drivers, why they
are coming here. The wall is a 14th century solution that is
not going to stop those people. We have to go to the root of
the problem, and looking at some of the research that you all
done, I mean, you guys are right.
For example, some of the key findings that you all have
looked at, if you look at data from 166 countries for the last
40 years, it shows you that, as long as you have different
income levels, the folks on the lower income level will be
coming over here. So, as long as we don't help work with those
countries, they are going to be coming here.
Violence leads to migration. Corruption drives migration.
Lack of jobs is another thing. And the strongest economic
factors associated with people coming up here have to look at
food insecurity--and this is from your own research--and, of
course, families' personal economic situation. You all have
done a lot of work including how the coyotes--and I have some
of the work that you all have done--why they come up here, how
they advertise, how they use social media. And it is an amazing
situation what they do to try to get people over here.
The funding that the President wanted to cut was wrong. As
you know, he reversed that because we heard it from your folks;
this would have been a disaster in Central American if we would
have allowed those cuts to happen. Back in 2014, when they
started coming up, Congresswoman Kay Granger, myself, and
Congress restarted this program, $750 million. Unfortunately,
it has been cut down to about I think a little over $500
million. The President was looking at stopping $1.1 billion a
few months ago, and I am glad he reversed and flip-flopped on
that position because it would have been the wrong thing to do
on this.
So my question is and I know a lot of the success stories.
We went to some of the USAID work that you all did a lot, but
we have to do a lot more and we have put in billions of
dollars. And for the billions of dollars we are putting, what
are the results? What else can we do? What else can we leverage
to do this? Because we have to go to the root of the problem.
So appreciate any insights you can give me.
And, again, I have everything, what you did for, you know,
what you are doing in Honduras, Salvador, Guatemala. It is
wonderful work. We need to do that.
And before my time runs out, as you answer the question, I
do have a rider here that I wish you guys would respond within
the time that is asked, asking you to look at Central America,
and this is USAID and, of course, USDA also, working groups so
we can work with them on the agriculture part. I will ask you
to make sure you fulfill the time to do this.
Tell me: What else can we do beside putting more money in
Central America?
Mr. Isley. Yes, thank you, Congressman.
We have many active projects within the scope of McGovern-
Dole and within the scope of Food for Progress in that region.
We also implement Cochran and Borlaug scientific exchange
programs with thought leaders there to improve the capacity of
their agricultural industries.
One project I would like to highlight in specific is
TechnoServe, our implementing partner in Ecuador, El Salvador,
Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Peru, where we are building
capacity in cacao and coffee production. That supports 120,000
farmers, 1,200 organizations, is valued at $47 million to
provide that kind of stability and, again, production that
benefits the U.S. industries based on the output.
So we are continuing to look at opportunities to implement
these programs in that region and support the very people you
are talking about and improve stability there.
Mr. Cuellar. Can you give us an inventory, both of you all,
what you all are doing there? Again, I am very supportive, and
I want to do more, but if you all can give me an inventory
because, as you know, coffee provides affected the situation.
The drought, they have a drought there, so whatever we can help
them address that. And, you know, a lot of people think people
are coming in from the urban areas, but a lot of the folks are
coming in, according to your work, are from the rural areas,
where the agricultural areas are at. So we really need your
help, and whatever we need to do--I know we are at the end of
the funding process--what we can do to put more money into the
areas, we need your assistance.
Mr. Isley. Very good. We will follow up on the inventory.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.011
Mr. Hicks. And just quickly, so I don't run over the time,
but a lot of the programs you were referencing are handled out
of our Latin American, Caribbean bureau. Very happy to provide
you inventory information. I will get that relayed back to you
for the record if that is okay.
You did ask how we might improve. I think it is a good
opportunity. You mentioned a lot of data that we collect and we
monitor.
Mr. Cuellar. Excellent data.
Mr. Hicks. And, you know, the last farm bill was passed
with an increase in our funding to our data collection type of
contract. We have a contract that is called a Famine Early
Warning System, and it is where we pull in data from crop
yields to rainfall to purchasing power, all the different
components to figure out where the food insecurity is. You guys
provided us some ability to increase our monitoring, evaluation
to make sure that that program is at tiptop shape. So you guys
are already doing a lot to help us, and I appreciate your
referencing to our vigorous data collection because that is
what drives our targeting of our program.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you.
And I appreciate both of you. Thank you so much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. I would like to recognize Mr. Fortenberry for
purposes of request for submission to the record.
Mr. Fortenberry. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And when I have my full 5 minutes, I will go into this in
more detail. This is a letter I wrote to the Comptroller
General, the Government Accountability Office, regarding what I
asked you earlier in terms of a survey of all internationally
related food assistance programs in our government and
internationally.
But I am going to come back to this. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
I would like to recognize Dr. Harris.
VENEZUELAN ASSISTANCE
Mr. Harris. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And, yeah, we are certainly a very generous nation, but I
have a couple of questions for you. One thing that came up is
that, in the testimony, there is mention of Venezuela receiving
assistance. Is that just for this future fiscal year if they do
democratization, or have they been receiving assistance up
until now?
Mr. Isley. Correct. Yes, it would be for the future year,
and it would be contingent on the transition to a democratic
government that would meet our satisfaction to release those
funds with our implementing partner.
Mr. Harris. So, right now, they are not one of the 38
countries mentioned in your testimony that received aid.
Mr. Isley. Correct.
Mr. Harris. Good.
GMO CORN REJECTION
Now a couple/few years ago, I was in Kakuma in Kenya, which
I understand is one of the countries that receives aid, and
visited the camp there, went to the food distribution site, and
was a little puzzled to find that they reject U.S. corn for
human consumption because it is GMO corn. This is very curious
to me because my children eat GMO corn, and I find it a little
unusual that a country that asks for U.S. aid would actually
reject it because, you know, they don't want their children to
eat what my children eat.
So, of those 38 developing countries and these programs,
how many will not accept U.S. corn because it is GMO corn for
human consumption?
Mr. Hicks. First of all, I eat GMO every day.
Mr. Harris. I think almost everyone in this room does
probably.
Mr. Hicks. But I don't have the total number, but I will
tell you that we have an amazing, phenomenal Ambassador in
Rome, who is Ambassador Kip Tom, and it is his job to work on
these international agriculture and food assistance issues, and
this is on his radar. It is at the top of his list. He is an
excellent advocate to try to convince these countries that GMO
not only isn't going to hurt you; it could probably help you
overcome a lot of the food insecurity and agricultural
challenges that are in a lot of these countries.
So I feel like we have really good representation right now
on this issue. It is not something that I in my humanitarian
capacity do, but with our Ambassador, who I coordinate with and
his staff almost daily, it is on his radar, and it is also on
the radar of the Bureau of Food Security, which is a sibling
bureau to the Humanitarian Bureau. The Administrator there,
Beth Dunford, it is something on her radar, too, where she is
actively working on this.
So I am very happy to provide the USAID information on
which countries have these issues, and I can help direct you to
any resource you want to talk about this issue.
Mr. Harris. Well, that is what I would like. I would like
to know which countries actually will not accept U.S.
humanitarian aid of GMO corn. It is fascinating. Look, our
district, we do corn and soybeans. Okay. They are GMO,
basically. I mean, 88 percent of corn, 90 percent of corn is
GMO. It is not a hundred percent. But we are talking about
trade, and everybody is criticizing the President: Oh, it is
trade, you know.
Look, that is a trade--the fact that there are European
nations, many European nations, trading partners who will not
take, who will not accept U.S. GMO corn for human consumption--
and I will tell you, because I had these discussions with some
of these Parliamentarians, they know this is political. They
know there is no scientific background for this. So why aren't
we using our aid programs as leverage against these political
trade barriers that are put up by these countries?
Mr. Isley. Well, we do, and it is USDA's job to address
some of those barriers, and we do that through these programs
and a lot of others.
This is an example of them adopting European policies in
this area and us continuing to work very hard to reverse that,
rebut that. And Food for Progress, for instance, we have
several projects in the SPS area, sanitary/phytosanitary, to
implement U.S.-based policies, science-based policies, not
based on fear. And it is our people, our attaches, our local
employed staff that get a lot of these shipments cleared that
may originally face obstacles based on whatever those import
barriers are, whether they are GMO or other requirements
countries may have, that are ill-advised.
So we work very hard to get them cleared there, also on the
trade side, but also in these programs. And we target Food for
Progress. We target Cochran, Borlaug to try to educate people
and to implement well-thought-out programs that not only
improve productivity but also sustainability and a lot of other
benefits of these technologies we see. So I am passionate. I
grew up on a farm in Iowa. Corn and soybeans. We use GMOs. I
get it.
Mr. Harris. Thank you very much.
Our farmers are the best agricultural producers in the
world, using the best technology, and have a lot to offer this
world, and these obstacles are tremendously frustrating to me.
Thank you very much.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much.
IN-KIND FOOD ASSISTANCE ISSUES
Mr. Isley and Mr. Hicks, I would like to return to a
subject that Mr. Aderholt touched on and ask you to discuss how
your programs ensure that the in-kind contributions support
both our farmers at home and the agricultural economies of the
recipient countries. Our authorizing and Appropriations
committees spent a number of years studying these effects and
trying to strike the right balance. In the past, we have heard
concerns that the use of the in-kind donations sometimes limits
the sustainability and the strength of the local agricultural
economy. And I recognize that programs, such as the Local and
Regional Procurement Program, have been established to attempt
to defray the consequences of in-kind donations.
But this is just one of the options in your toolkit to
ensure that your programs achieve the ultimate goal of creating
self-sustaining agricultural economies in recipient countries.
How do you respond to these criticisms of in-kind donations and
how do you address these concerns and what improvements need to
be made to your programs to ensure that in-kind donations
advance the local agricultural economy? And tell me whether or
not the programs are flexible enough today to do this and still
give the pride and the utilization of American-grown products.
Mr. Isley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And we work, first and foremost, we work very closely with
our ag industry constituents in terms of these in-kind
contributions. We work with our sister agency AMS on the
procurement of those, as Director Hicks had mentioned.
To give you an example, under Food for Progress, we
purchased 185,000 metric tons of U.S. commodities comprising
soybeans, wheat, rice, and others. So those groups are very
interested. Peanuts is another big commodity we supply. So,
they are very interested and meet with us regularly on that. We
also are constantly accepting proposals on what is qualified
under these programs to supply in expanding that list based on
our technical criteria.
In terms of impact, some of the criticism really is on the
Food for Progress Program as the monetization of those. So one
of our requirements is we have to do economic analysis of
potential disruption of local economies and local markets. We
take that very seriously. Our Office of Global Analysis does
those economic analyses and could substantiate the low to
negative or no impact from the supply, and the actual
commodities are chosen on that basis as well.
And we take those projects in turn on the Food for Progress
and use the proceeds to actually build capacity there. So,
instead of negative consequences, there is actually positive
consequences. I mentioned cacao and coffee projects. There is
also the regulatory SPS projects. We have got a poultry project
where we are developing feed and productivity improvements to
the poultry industry in Tanzania.
So there is multiple positive benefits to the countries,
but we are always cautious about economic impact from the
supply of the commodities.
Mr. Hicks. And I would echo that.
We are required under title II to do what is called, which
you are probably familiar with, the Bellman determination. It
is a constant monitoring of the economic impact. You know, when
we are the largest provision of food aid, bringing in large
amounts of food can sometimes cause some imbalances on the
local economies. So we take a lot of care to make sure that we
are looking at all the right indicators. We are doing market
analysis. We have partner reporting requirements on this
particular issue from their point of view. We also have a lot
of field-deployed staff who are monitoring local markets.
So we take it very seriously. It is a very important piece
of the Food for Peace Act and the requirements that are in the
legislation, and we adjust our response accordingly when we
find that there is an imbalance.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
We have been joined by the distinguished lady from New
York, the chairwoman of the full Appropriations Committee. She
has had a busy schedule this morning, but I announced earlier
that, when she arrived, we would defer to her and the
gentlelady has arrived.
And I am pleased to recognize the gentlelady from New York,
Mrs. Lowey, for whatever time she may take and for whatever
questions she may like to address.
EMERGENCY VS. DEVELOPMENTAL ASSISTANCE
The Chairwoman. I do want to thank the distinguished chair
for that very generous introduction. We are trying to get our
work done, and there are several Appropriations hearings at the
same time. So thank you.
And thank you to our distinguished minority for your
generosity. I appreciate it.
So, let me welcome you. I am sure you have been adequately
welcomed, Mr. Isley from USDA, Mr. Hicks from, USAID. And,
again, I apologize because I was looking forward to hearing
from you with your very important presentation.
From the perspective of this subcommittee and as chairwoman
of the Subcommittee on State and Foreign Operations, it really
is important that we provide responsive assistance in
emergencies and that, when possible, we ensure this aid
compliments the longer term development programs. Providing
humanitarian support to those in need, in addition to promoting
resilience and sustainable economic growth, is critical to
global stability and national security.
The distinction between food aid and longer term food
assistance is important in my judgment, and I am sorry that I
missed your very eloquent, informative testimony, but I did
kind of read it quickly before.
A couple of questions. Mr. Hicks, can you please describe
how USAID Food for Peace efforts in areas where there is
prolonged need for food differ from those supported by
development initiatives, like Feed the Future, that promote
longer term food security? Now, if you have already answered
these questions and my staff is giving them to me again, I
apologize. So, I am assuming you didn't have them. If you can
please respond, to what degree does Food for Peace programming
intersect with Feed the Future programming, if at all?
Mr. Hicks. Sure. Well, first of all, I think it is a good
enough question to answer twice. So but this is my first time
to address it. So Food for Peace is indeed integrated with Feed
the Future. We are part of the Global Food Security Strategy
that was required under the Global Food Security Act, and we
are increasingly becoming more coordinated with the Bureau of
Food Security and the Feed the Future initiative.
Our job is to address the root causes of hunger. We target
the most vulnerable. We work in our development programs that
is funded by this subcommittee. We improve agriculture. We
improve livelihoods, maternal and child health, women's
empowerment, disaster-risk reduction. What we are doing is
helping these communities adapt to the recurrent shocks, and
then we program alongside Feed the Future, who will come in
behind us, and once these communities graduate from the need
for humanitarian assistance, Feed the Future will come in and
not only help them thrive with their own self-reliance but also
get access to markets and value chains.
And I actually saw this with my own eyes when I was in
northern Kenya a couple of years ago. There was a community
that was using--there was needing humanitarian assistance for
drought. We did a work-for-assets program funded by this
committee, and we were able to provide food in exchange for the
creation of a water canal. Feed the Future came in behind us,
used that water canal to help them with agricultural
development. Now they are feeding themselves, and they are
connected to value chains, and they have graduated from our
program.
So, that is one example. We are doing it in Sahel. We are
going to be doing it in Haiti. We are working alongside
integrated in Feed the Future with the Global Food Security
Strategy, with the resilience strategy, and with the new
redesign where we are transforming USAID and bringing these
bureaus together. We are creating a Humanitarian Bureau. That
is going to be a sibling bureau to the Resilience and Food
Security Bureau to even bring tighter integration.
The Chairwoman. I just want to pursue that for a minute
because what I have wondered about: Are there measures in place
to ensure that funding for these programs is complimentary and
not duplicative?
Mr. Hicks. That is an excellent question.
So our primary focus on the emergency side, we are the
first responders on the emergency side. We are the lead for
providing emergency food assistance. On the development side,
we have a different target, a different kind of angle for
addressing the root causes. So we are doing the root causes of
hunger. We are working with communities that have recurrent
shock. And Food for Peace, they are working many times at a
systems level, at a national level, or they are working with
families that are further along that journey of self-reliance
that Administrator Green talks about. These are like the
entrepreneurials, the producers.
So we start at the beginning of the journey, and then we
pass it off for them to take it off to the further development.
So we are working at the most vulnerable portion of that.
The Chairwoman. So just continue that a bit because, in
protracted scenarios, how does it work?
Mr. Hicks. So, in protracted scenarios, because there is
such a high degree of conflict and instability, there aren't
opportunities for development. And if there are, it is very on
the margins. If there aren't the persistent rule of law and
safety and security, markets aren't going to happen.
The Chairwoman. Right.
Mr. Hicks. So, for example, in northeast Nigeria, it is
complete unsafe for free markets, for rule of law. There aren't
those opportunities, but we are monitoring the situation. So,
when there are opportunities on the margins and it makes sense
to make those investments, we will be working with Feed the
Future to take advantage of those if the landscape changes.
The Chairwoman. And in areas where vouchers used and
particularly in settings where food aid is required for
prolonged periods, just tell me how programs are being designed
because I know how difficult it is.
Mr. Hicks. Sure. So, on vouchers and other means to use
local markets, there really isn't a one-size-fits-all. We look
at the availability of infrastructure, the availability of
markets for each individual response, and we design our
response according to what is there.
So, in Jordan, where it is a middle-income country, where
there are thriving markets, we use many times debit cards at
local markets. There is a very high number of urban refugees
spread out over the entire city--all these cities. It is
impossible to find each one and give them a bag of wheat and
there is this thriving market. So it is more effective to use
that kind of credit card system. And other places where there
isn't electronic banking, we will sometimes use paper vouchers,
and there are systems in place to monitor that and to ensure
that those vouchers are being used by the right beneficiaries.
Sometimes we use biometrics, photo IDs, other methods.
But every context is different, and we have to kind of
build out from whatever is available there and what the dangers
and the risks are for each.
FOOD ASSISTANCE BRANDING
The Chairwoman. Now I would also appreciate your views with
respect to branding. Is food aid from the United States
generally branded with USAID marking?
Mr. Hicks. Absolutely. So, when it is commodities, whether
it is U.S. commodities or local regional commodities, the USAID
logo is very prominently displayed on the bags, containers, on
the packaging. If it is a debit card, like used in Jordan, the
logo is on that card. If it is on voucher paper, it is on the
paper. If it is a work-for-food worksite, there is a sign
prominently displayed. When I was in northern Kenya, I saw the
sign right next to the canal. It is very evident. We also use
messaging like radio and other types of public messaging as
well.
The Chairwoman. Thank you very much. I won't take advantage
of your generosity anymore, but I really appreciated this, and
I apologize because there is another hearing next door.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. We are
always delighted to have you come and to bring your insight and
your wisdom, and we appreciate that very much.
At this time, I will be happy to yield to Mr. Fortenberry.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.
And, Madam Chair, if I can say, even though you didn't have
the benefit of the fullness of the hearing earlier, your
questions were absolutely precisely what was needed at this
point in the hearing. So, thank you. That is a great
contribution.
The Chairwoman. Well, thank you, my friend.
FOOD ASSISTANCE INNOVATION
Mr. Fortenberry. And especially the last one as well, the
branding, and that is well answered. I think this is very
important, particularly what Congressman Aderholt was also
saying, that we are telling, we have to tell our story. No one
else will.
I am going to be abstract for a moment more. Then we are
going to go to some specifics.
The letter that I have sent to the General Accountability
Office asks for a map, a mapping strategy. This is basically
the language: Develop a comprehensive map of all United States
and international food-related agencies and programs and share
that with Congress in the next 180 days.
It won't be quite that fast. You said you do your own
analysis of global food programming. Maybe we can have another
conversation about that; but I think can you understand my
intention in trying to push this because I worry about the
issue of fragmentation. Very helpful to hear has that the
Global Food Security Act is one of the compelling factors of
helping you all integrate Feed the Future and your other
emergency assistance programs, how those build upon one
another. That is very helpful feedback.
But if you simply do a survey, back-of-the-envelope survey,
I mean, we have USAID and USDA with long-term structural
missions, emergency missions, long-term development missions,
and overlap. We have university systems. You mentioned Borlaug
program out of Iowa as well, extraordinary work that they do.
We have the Food for Peace program, McGovern-Dole, Food for
Progress. On the international stage the World Food Program,
the biggest agency in this humanitarian space, which America
leads by the way. You mentioned the Ambassador that we have to
the U.N. Missions in Rome, most of which are agricultural
related. We give money to the International Fund for
Agricultural Development. Nobody is even aware of what it does.
The U.S. African Development Foundation.
The Food and Agriculture Organization founded in post-World
War II in Rome, how are we integrated with them? And by the
way, China has now taken the leadership of the FAO. Now tell me
what that means. Give me an answer. How much does China give
away in humanitarian assistance each year? Can you give it
right off the top of your head? You don't have to answer it. It
is a rhetorical question.
Mr. Hicks. I don't think there is any.
Mr. Fortenberry. I asked the Secretary of State this, and
he had a dumbfounded, stumped look. I said: Mr. Secretary, it
is not meant for an answer because who knows? And it is
probably about as close to zero as you get.
One of the largest economies in the world and now the
leadership of the one of the main organizations for
agricultural development, agricultural policy, and, to some
degree, food assistance is being headed by a country that does
no lifting in this regard.
So, again, back to the original intent of what I was
talking about, this is an important mission for us. It is not
well understood in terms of the global communities--well, in
terms of America's generosity in creating conditions for
stability in the global community. It is not understood by most
Americans.
This is part of the reason why, again, taking a step back
and surveying everything that we are doing and assuring that it
is properly integrated, that we are not just moving old things
forward in time, but that we are actually creating innovation
in this space for the 21st century is absolutely necessary for
this committee to be in front of.
So thank you, Mr. Chairman, for including this in the
record.
ASSISTANCE TO HAITI
Haiti, so, Congressman Moolenaar, who was here earlier, and
I traveled to Haiti at the request of an NGO who you help
underwrite, Director Hicks. They do extraordinary work among
the poorest of the poor. So we go to the hurricane-ravaged
areas. We look at some special projects they have been involved
in. We run into people that are developing solar down there,
Americans, young American people, probably in some way funded
by you all as well. We also met with a group of business people
who all of them could move their businesses out of Haiti, but
they are good Haitians who want to do the right thing for their
own people.
Haiti's market has been disrupted by this problem with the
Dominican Republic. It is in some ways a nonfunctioning market
because of the problem of the, I would say, black market flow
of goods and the disruption of the ability for the Haitian
market to function properly.
Anyway, the point being Haiti can't even provide enough
coffee production for its own needs, much less the potential of
what it could be for huge export opportunity for the people
there. So we looked at that southern area there, the potential
for a co-op in partnership with that business community who
does not have the ability of initial capital leverage, which we
could provide, maybe even in concert with, again, the
development finance organization of OPIC, on and on and on.
That becomes then a project scalable to meet not just the
emergency needs in ravaged areas but then the type of Feed the
Future, Global Food Security Act thinking for long-term
sustainability.
How are we going to get to this? I mean, it is ripe with
potential out there, but I just want to make sure that we are
all thinking innovatively and in solidarity together about what
can be versus getting caught up in what a lot of times we do,
just managing what is. Now we are doing both and here, and I
appreciate that.
And I have done it again. I have taken my full 5 minutes,
Mr. Chairman, without letting them respond. What am I supposed
to do? I yield back.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Fortenberry.
Ms. McCollum.
MITIGATION OF EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Well, we have heard about Wisconsin and Iowa, but Mr.
Borlaug is a Golden Gopher from the University of Minnesota. So
I just wanted to set the record straight on that. We are all
proud of him, and he saved many, many lives.
Everybody here today knows that we are witnessing record
numbers of forcibly displaced people around the world,
displaced people, refugees, asylum seekers. We are experiencing
them right here at our borders.
June 2019, the U.N. Refugee Agency put the number at a
devastating 70.8 million people around the world. Rising global
conflicts, which Mr. Hicks has spoken to, regional instability,
we are well aware of extreme weather and climate events that
are directly linked to food insecurity.
But in Central American--and I am using a World Bank
statistic--20 million people in Central American are displaced
by climate change, and it is brought on because they have been
experiencing serious drought conditions since 2014 and that
drought just makes the whole issue of growing coffee with this
leaf lust in coffee more because it is so heat-sensitive.
And, in fact, when I was in El Paso, through an
interpreter, I heard firsthand from coffee farmers who were
fleeing 3 years of bad crops. They had no trace of their own.
They wanted to--went to the cities and then were attacked by
gangs, and they just want to work and feed their family. That
is El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. I met farmers from all
areas.
So, as the food insecurity continues to set the stage for
instability and violent extremism in regions that we already
know are highly volatile, can you maybe talk about some of the
mitigation that you are doing in some programs or what USAID is
doing to help with this global landscape, which is under, you
know, under siege with climate change? Because some of these
transformative things that we have in Feed the Future means
that we have to start being honest and open and talk about
alternative crops.
Mr. Hicks. So, for the programs that would help, like, the
coffee growers and some of these challenges with agriculture,
like using different types of techniques for agriculture, that
is most definitely a key part of Feed the Future initiative
that is led by the Bureau of Food Security.
Where Food for Peace comes into play, we also have a part
to play when there is the need for adaption to change. And that
is what we do with our nonemergency development portion of
title II. As I was saying earlier to the chairwoman, you know,
we are working with the most vulnerable to help them adapt to
these changes. So, whatever the recurrent shock is--and a lot
of times it is from these climate shocks, these droughts, these
adverse weather conditions--we are building resilience in those
communities. We have been doing it for decades where we are
helping them adapt to those recurrent shocks, to adjust the way
they are living so that they can survive those shocks and
continue with their own self-reliance and self-development.
And it is a keystone piece of what our program does.
Mr. Isley. Yes, and Food for Progress is particularly
tailored to be able to address some of the challenges you
highlighted. I mentioned the Food for Progress Program we
actually have targeted in the region with the three countries,
in addition to others you mentioned, on coffee and cacao
production. Some of objectives are to increase the
productivity, based on the current economic conditions they are
facing around their production practices, around genetics, and
how to improve in drought conditions and other conditions the
actual output.
That is targeted broadly at a large group of farmers. It
also benefits the U.S. based on taking the output of that
production and helping the industries here like our chocolate
industry, our coffee industry, based on being able to import
the products that they produce there.
So it is a very well-integrated project, and it is very
directed at adopting technology and best practices to improve
productivity and to improve stability of the people there that
can earn a livelihood based on that production.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Climate change is affecting our farmers here, whether we
want to call it extreme weather or whatever or extreme drought.
And if we don't get a handle on it, reducing the amount of
carbon in the air, this problem is only going to get worse.
I thank you, gentlemen, for your work. I really do. Thank
you.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Fortenberry.
FOOD FOR PROGRESS AND HAITI
Mr. Fortenberry. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate it. I will try not to give another speech.
Back to Haiti, again, it is what I call place-based
strategy. So we take a specific place, and we actually can
generalize to the principle of what we are talking about. You
respond to the emergency need.
Years ago, I was election observer in Haiti and, again,
after the massive earthquakes. But the Vice President of Haiti
told us something that was very fascinating. He said: You have
given us $5 billion.
He said: Thank you, but what we need is direct foreign
investment.
Now that term is a bit out of vogue now, but at the same
time, the idea is back to what I was saying earlier.
Let's envision, for instance, if we took Food for Progress
and we had a conversation with the new development finance
mechanism at OPIC that comes on the heels of what USAID is
doing in terms of going in first, working with NGOs, creating
some stability in the midst of an emergency. You go to southern
Haiti, which was devastated, and you see the sides of those
mountains and the fullness of potential for coffee production
there. You use the business community's expertise who are
trustworthy there--this is an underlying problem of lack of
governance and corruption and on and on--but, again, an
integrated partnership in solidarity with good people who are
going to provide the long-term sustainability so they can
graduate, and the actual conditions there will shift so that
each small-scale farmer is then put in a type of community
cooperative arrangement, underwritten by capital flows,
potentially with us, maybe leveraged through the private sector
through your program or others. That then is shepherded by
USAID, who is on the ground and our own American Embassy
personnel, Foreign Ag Service, that creates a project in 2 to 3
years, first with banana production development so you are
covering your variable costs, because that crop comes in
quickly, with a longer term crop of coffee coming because the
banana can grow underneath the coffee plant.
So this is all and then you take that model, once it works,
and scale it across regions that have this particular type of
production opportunity or others.
This is the type of thing we are talking about when we are
looking for a spectrum of who is doing what and where, and what
can we do to innovate around it? Mark Green and I have had this
same conversation. I would like to have it with you in terms of
the potential of Food for Progress, as well as OPIC's new
development initiative, because this is what I want to get to,
in my time, however long it is here. What is the architecture
of what we are doing now, which seems to be very, very good?
But what gaps are there potentially--others international
partners who are doing certain things, other international
partners who are claiming rights to ownership of this space but
aren't doing anything, as I mentioned the Chinese, and on and
on. This is the broader conversation that I want to continue
with you all.
I am going to stop and let you respond to everything I have
been saying.
Director Hicks, you haven't had a chance.
Mr. Hicks. So I actually would love to respond. And Haiti,
it is one of the places where we are working.
Mr. Fortenberry. Remember it is a place-based strategy. It
is a specific that is generalizable to the principle. That is
what I want to keep doing.
Mr. Hicks. Correct. There are very specific contextual
issues in Haiti that we are responding to, but we are changing
the way we respond to the emergency in a way that better links
to the resilience and the development side. So what we are
doing is we are, if we are providing food, we are going to do a
food-for-assets kind of project, where we give folks food, but
we have them work on an asset for the community that can be
used in a development context. Feed the Future can come in
behind us, use those assets to then build resilience, and get
them on that self--
Mr. Fortenberry. How does that reconcile with the Food for
Progress option?
Mr. Isley. Well, yes, we can certainly build that program,
and we put Haiti on, in communication coordination with USAID,
as a priority country for McGovern-Dole. We just awarded fiscal
year 2019 a new project to do school feeding in Haiti to bring
on that midterm support for Haiti, not the immediate emergency
relief, but the longer term sustainability.
We can certainly look at Food for Progress in the same
context to build onto what is already there and address the
capacity in the crops you mentioned. We are very attuned to
doing that.
Mr. Fortenberry. So, once I good threat report back, it is
going to come to you guys as well in this committee. And we are
going to continue this conversation about the continuum of
support mechanisms here and throughout the world, what we do
well, what gaps we might be able to identify, how we can become
more effective.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Isley. We welcome that.
Mr. Fortenberry. Very good. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
Mr. Isley, Mr. Hicks, you each have programs where success
can be defined in a number of ways.
DETERMINING WHEN PROGRAMS ARE NO LONGER NECESSARY
Mr. Isley, I think Mr. Hicks has given an excellent
example, but can you just tell us--well, both of you can--how
you determine when a country should be graduated from your
programs when they have achieved a level of self-reliance that
removes the need for the programs to continue? And, of course,
Mr. Isley, if you want to give us an example of a success
story, we would appreciate that.
Mr. Isley. Certainly. And as indicated before and in the
written and oral testimony, graduation is a key component as we
go into the programs in the beginning and as we work with the
implementing partners. Of course, each of the programs that we
implement have specific selection criteria. So the countries
would need to continue to meet that selection criteria or fall
outside of it in terms of whether they would get new
programming.
Take McGovern-Dole, for example, and school feeding. We
work very closely with local government and even country
government in terms of the taking over those programs. The
things we do to ensure the graduation is to ensure that the
laws and regulations are in place that enable them to take over
the programs and to ensure they do what you all do, and that is
appropriate the necessary money and have the ability to
actually take over the school feeding from us.
Recent example in Laos, where we are in transition for the
government to take over, we brought a group over to the U.S.
under our Cochran program and provided that education here in
the U.S. on how to transition that programming back to the
country.
A recent example of success, as was mentioned in the
materials, was Kenya where over 4,000 schools that we have
supported have now been taken over by the Kenyan Government,
again, with our assistance and support in that transition.
Mr. Hicks. Well, you know, I provided a specific example,
but I think a response that would maybe get to what both of you
guys are looking at right now: We at Food for Peace we don't
have anything on autopilot. We are constantly assessing.
Basically, every year, we do a zero-based budget when it comes
to our response. We are constantly looking at the data. We have
the Famine Early Warning System. We have staff on the ground.
We are looking at rainfall. We are looking at purchasing power.
We are looking at all the things that go into food insecurity,
and if the data doesn't show there is a need, we are not going
to give humanitarian assistance to folks that don't have a
demonstrated need. So we are constantly shifting.
So there are countries that graduate. There are countries
that get on the dole. All we are doing is looking at the data,
and the second that we provide assistance to folks that don't
have a need, it is no longer humanitarian. So we take the data-
driven approach very seriously. So, you know, it is not on
autopilot. And we are constantly looking. If there is an area
that had drought but doesn't have a need this year, we are not
going to fund that area.
Mr. Bishop. Well, Mr. Isley and Mr. Hicks, I would like to
thank you both for being here today.
I know there are a few things on which you are going to get
back to us on, and I think you will be submitted some questions
that you can get back. I think Mr. Cuellar wanted some
additional information. And we will forward additional
questions to you for the record, and we would appreciate your
diligence in getting responses back to us as quickly as you
can.
But, again, we would like to thank you. And we look forward
to continuing to work with you to make sure that these programs
and American generosity is administered effectively and
efficiently around the world. With that, we thank you.
And the subcommittee is adjourned.
[Questions and answers submitted for the record follow:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.122
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.123
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.124
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.125
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.126
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.127
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.128
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.129
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.130
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.131
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.132
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.133
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.134
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.135
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.136
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.137
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.138
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.139
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.140
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.141
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.142
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.143
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.144
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.145
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.146
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.147
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.148
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.149
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.150
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.151
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.152
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.153
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.154
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.155
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.156
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.157
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.158
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.159
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.160
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.161
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.162
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.163
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.164
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.165
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.166
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.167
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.168
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.169
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.170
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.171
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.172
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.173
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.174
Wednesday, October 16, 2019.
FOOD AND NUTRITION SERVICE: POLICY AND PROGRAM OVERVIEW
WITNESS
BRANDON LIPPS, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY, FOOD, NUTRITION, AND CONSUMER
SERVICES
Mr. Bishop. The subcommittee will come to order.
Good morning and welcome to today's hearing.
Testifying before the subcommittee today is Mr. Brandon
Lipps, the Deputy Under Secretary for the Food, Nutrition, and
Consumer Services.
Thank you for being here, Mr. Lipps. I am looking forward
to today's discussion.
The Food and Nutrition and Consumer Services (FNCS) is the
largest mission area at the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) in terms of its budget size. In the fiscal year 2020
appropriations bill that was passed by the House in June, the
Food and Nutrition Services' budget, including the mandatory
and the discretionary resources totaled more than a hundred
billion dollars. FNS is responsible for overseeing 15 domestic
nutrition assistance programs, which millions of our Nation's
most vulnerable population rely on to feed their children and
to put a good, healthy meal on the table.
I often say that the work of this subcommittee touches the
lives of every citizen on a daily basis. This is especially
true for the programs that are administered by the Food and
Nutrition Service. In fiscal year 2020, nearly 6.4 million
women, infants, and children are estimated to participate in
the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants,
and Children (WIC) program. For the Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as Food Stamps, the
number is 38 million. And in 2020, an estimated 5.28 billion
school lunches and snacks will be served for the National
School Lunch Program (NSLP).
The research is clear: Providing and expanding access to
healthy, nutritious food improves children's academics and
their overall health.
Food insecurity is not only a health issue, but it is also
a national security issue. Fort Benning is in my district, and
I often hear from the trainers there that bone density in the
young recruits is not good because, growing up, they did not
have enough nutritious food, and this lack of bone density
causes an increased number of stress fractures during the
training. And, of course, this ultimately costs the Department
of Defense and taxpayers a lot of money, and it limits the pool
of potential all-volunteer recruits for our military.
Unfortunately, I think there is a tendency by some to want
to reflexively reduce the cost of programs without thinking
about the individuals who will be harmed by such actions. That
is why I was very alarmed when the administration proposed the
rule that would essentially eliminate broad-based categorical
eligibility, a move that could kick an estimated 3.1 million
people off of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and
jeopardize school meals for almost a million children.
Congress had this debate during the Farm Bill. The final
bill did not include these tightened eligibility criteria, nor
did it include stricter work requirements for able-bodied
adults without dependents. Yet the Administration is ignoring
Congress and, instead, moving forward with executive action to
address these policies on their own.
Now, it may be easy and politically expedient to point to
one millionaire in Minnesota who purposefully defrauded the
American government and taxpayers as a publicity stunt, but
that one individual is not representative of all SNAP
recipients, and we all know the truth is much more complicated
than that.
I, like everyone else, believe in program integrity. But
let's be clear: USDA is not kicking 3.1 millionaires off of
SNAP. It is kicking 3.1 million vulnerable people off of SNAP.
I am concerned and I worry that this will
disproportionately impact working families with children trying
to climb out of poverty. In 2017, SNAP lifted 3.4 million
people, including 1\1/2\ million children, out of poverty. The
economy is still not working for everyone, and the
Administration should not make it worse by decimating one of
our most effective safety net programs.
The Secretary's motto is ``do right and feed everyone.'' I
like that saying and I feel that it is a very, very worthy
goal, but when children are going hungry because of your policy
proposals, you are failing to live up to your own standard.
Finally, I want to conclude with how alarmed and troubled I
am at the constant stream of news articles about school
districts shaming low-income students over their school lunch
debt. It is unfathomable to me that anyone would shame and
punish children for their parents' or their guardians'
inability to afford school meals. Shaming students is not going
to solve the problem, and it is certainly not going to make the
youngsters feel more food-secure.
As you can tell, there is a lot to discuss today, and I
again want to thank our witness, Deputy Under Secretary Lipps,
for being with us, and I look forward to our discussion.
Before we begin, I want to say that I am very proud of the
Agriculture Appropriations bill that was passed by the House in
June, and I look forward to conferencing with the Senate this
fall in enacting a very strong fiscal year 2020 budget for the
Food and Nutrition Service and all of USDA programs.
Now I would like to ask our distinguished ranking member,
Mr. Fortenberry, if he has any opening remarks.
Mr. Fortenberry.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, so much for
holding this very important hearing. And I will just make a few
brief remarks.
I think that most Americans would be very surprised by the
size of the agricultural budget, and very pleased, frankly,
with the types of policies that have been enacted by this
Committee and by the entire Congress over the years to do
really two things. It is to mitigate risk, to reduce the risk
for farmers and ranchers and those who provide our food, which
results in some of the lowest food prices in the world, and to
protect those who are vulnerable, who have food insecurity.
That is the dual goal that we work on here. I am very proud of
that. We spend a lot of money doing it. I think most Americans
would be surprised by the amount of money we spend doing it,
but when we go deeper and we peel back what we are doing and
why and the benefits to society as a whole, I think most
Americans would be very proud of this work, as I am.
Now, what we have to do, as you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, is
to look at the issues of program integrity. And I think as a
future goal for all of us in Congress, particularly this
Committee, is to look at the alignment, the possibilities of a
new type of alignment between food and nutrition and health.
That ought to be the objective, because the majority of the
expenditures in this bill are for food and nutrition. The other
programs, of course, being essential for our farmers and
ranchers, but the majority of expenditures here are food and
nutrition. And so in the old days, just counting calories, we
want to just get people as many calories as possible, but
ignoring the reality of what it means to have nutritious food
and also to view this program through the lens of how it is
transitory.
Some people need this type of assistance and are going to
permanently need this type of assistance. Other people--and we
have some good news in this regard--need it as a transition
because, for whatever happened, the contingencies in life
happened to them, they became vulnerable, and we do not want to
see anyone in America go hungry.
The good news is, in the last several years, the SNAP
program rolls have dropped by about 24 percent, as I understand
it. That is because people are finding access to meaningful
work. That is something to celebrate. So we have got a dual
role here; again, a program that protects people in vulnerable
circumstances, and also gives some people the opportunity to
immediately rise out of that vulnerability into meaningful
work. That is a bit of good news that we can all celebrate.
So, thank you again, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to participate in the hearing.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Fortenberry.
Mr. Lipps, without objection, your entire written testimony
will be included in the record, and I recognize you now for
your statement, and then we will proceed with questions.
Mr. Lipps. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Fortenberry, members of the Subcommittee, for the opportunity
to discuss the Administration's fiscal year 2020 budget request
for the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food and Nutrition and
Consumer Services, as well as our priorities and recent
activities.
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 that
every American has access to a wholesome, nutritious diet, even
when they face challenging circumstances.
Let me underscore at the outset that the President's Budget
Request for fiscal year 2020 fully funds the major nutrition
assistance programs to support projected participation of all
of those who are eligible and participate. As you know, you and
your colleagues in the Senate have already reported out fiscal
year 2020 appropriations legislation for the Department in
advance of today's hearing. Though final action by Congress is
still ahead, I am in the somewhat unusual position of already
being able to thank you for your support of several initiatives
in our requests, particularly those related to customer service
and program integrity across the 15 programs that we administer
at the Food and Nutrition Service.
This committee has expressed interest in USDA's recent
regulatory actions related to SNAP. While I cannot discuss the
content of the final rules or the comments we have received on
them before they are published, I would like to take a moment
and talk about our objectives in this area.
Americans, as you note, 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 other programs are critical to millions of Americans, and
we should be proud to have the abundance to come alongside them
in these hard times. In order to do that, we have a
responsibility to be good stewards of every dollar.
For far too long, negative press has weakened American's
confidence in many of these important programs that you have
charged us with administering at the Food and Nutrition
Service. Stories that are sometimes so egregious they appear
surely to be only rumors are unfortunately verified as factual,
jeopardizing the future of these important programs for
millions of families.
Let's first take a look at the millionaire that the
chairman mentioned who was legally authorized for SNAP. He was
not the only millionaire that has been mentioned in the news
for being able to access the SNAP program. There are others as
well who have created negative news stories on this important
program.
This loophole was first exposed by Congress on oversight
authority, the Government 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''.
This loophole received greater scrutiny in 2015 by USDA's
Office of Inspector General that described how one State
conferred eligibility by providing recipients, quote, ``with a
brochure for social services,'' with the OIG further noting
that the State only mailed the brochure to applicants after it
conferred confirmed their eligibility for SNAP. This is not
categorical eligibility.
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 2\1/2\ times less in SNAP benefits simply
because one State uses an inflated and inaccurate utility
deduction. What begins as a series of observations from
frontline staff at 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 source of their base calculation for
these deductions 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 recipients.
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 waive the
congressionally mandated work requirements by stating that 3.6
percent unemployment is a lack of sufficient jobs. Egregious
program abuses such as these leave dark clouds over these
important programs, risking future support and reflecting
negatively on the recipients who are in need of these programs.
Families on these programs and the taxpayers who fund them
expect better from their government. We at USDA are dedicated
to ensuring these important programs are preserved for those in
need and that they are administered equitably, with integrity,
and with the eligibility standards that Congress has provided.
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 this critical program.
Thank you for having me. And, with that, Mr. Chairman, I am
happy to answer any questions.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.175
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.176
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.177
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.178
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.179
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.180
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.181
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.182
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.183
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Lipps.
SNAP--BROAD-BASED CATEGORICAL ELIGIBILITY
As you heard from me earlier, I am very troubled by the
Administration's proposed broad-based categorical eligibility
rule. The Department's own analysis is that the rule will drop
9 percent of the current recipients from the rolls, including
2.2 percent of all households with one or more elderly person,
and 7.4 percent of all households with children. It admits that
the rule may negatively impact food security among people who
do not meet the proposed income and resource eligibility
requirements.
Your testimony frames this as a way to end the practice of
allowing households to be eligible for SNAP by simply being
handed a brochure from another Federal program. You know, as
well as I do, that this is a vast oversimplification of that
issue. If you are applying for SNAP, you and your family are
either teetering on the brink of food insecurity or you are
already food insecure.
Contrary to what I hear, I would argue that the broad-based
categorical eligibility actually promotes the goals of all
Americans, rewarding hard work and encouraging self-
sufficiency. It allows States to protect recipients from being
thrown off SNAP because of a minor increase in their pay. This
rewards the working poor for working harder. It allows States
to protect recipients who have very modest levels of savings.
This promotes self-efficiency, helping families to weather
emergencies such as an unexpected car repair or some unexpected
medical expenses.
States still fully review each person's application. They
interview the applicant. The applicant has to submit full
documentation in support of their application. This is not an
automatic green light to get SNAP, as you may seem to imply.
Why is it that you insist that the current practice is
inconsistent with these goals? And, of course, one of the
concerns is that the impact that the proposed rule would have
on the eligibility for free school meals. How many children
will lose access to free school meals under the proposed rule?
Mr. Lipps. Sure. Mr. Chairman, with regard to your first
question about why we proposed these, I will go back to your
statement about this not being a simple issue. It is not a
simple issue. The issues you raised are important issues that I
think we can have important conversations about. The reality is
that under the Administration's proposal, categorical
eligibility will be maintained in the form that it existed
prior to the expansion of categorical eligibility to qualifying
people by the receipt of a brochure.
Unfortunately, that has moved to a level that it is a
negative reflection on the program. It has been. Over time, it
continues to be culled out by oversight agencies of the
Congress and the USDA as we move forward. Congress has provided
asset and income tests in statute, and it is our job at USDA to
ensure that those are abided by as we move forward on that
front.
So we put this rule forward to work on the integrity of the
program, to ensure that it is administered with the confidence
of all of the American people as we move forward, and the
issues you raised are important and we would be happy to engage
with you on those looking forward.
Mr. Bishop. Okay. Have you pulled back the rule temporarily
as a result of some data that you learned that would increase
the number of children that will be kicked off of the school
lunch program?
Mr. Lipps. We have not pulled back the rule, no, sir. The
rule is advancing. The comment period has closed on the rule.
We did release an analysis that was requested on the indirect
effect on direct eligibility for school meals. We have shared
that information publicly. It will be published in the Federal
Register later this week, and we will have a comment period on
that for 14 days, which will conclude the finality of comments
on that rule.
Mr. Bishop. All right. My time has expired.
Mr. Fortenberry.
SNAP--EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Again, I think what we are talking about here is the
fundamental value proposition of fairness.
I think you mentioned, Mr. Lipps, in your opening
statement, that Americans are quite generous, and we
fundamentally believe that if someone is in vulnerable
circumstances, they deserve help. They deserve heart.
Mr. Lipps. Yes, sir.
Mr. Fortenberry. And that is the core of this program. So
we help those in need, and at the same time we stop those who
cheat, and at the same time we encourage those who need
opportunity. So when we struggle through that dynamic, you can
pluck one or two incidences that were brought to you by the
Inspector General. I think it needs to be pointed out.
But what I would like to use my time more so for--and we
wrestle through where those lines are. But, again, back to the
point. When we have a flourishing economy which, when labor
participation rates are going up, where people are finding
access to meaningful work, this hopefully will begin to
translate really soon into upward pressure on wages. So it is
not--it is not the Commerce Department or the Labor
Department's issue set; it is this issue set as well.
How do we protect those most in need who may need to be
permanently on this program and we not only accept that, we
embrace that as part of our safety net? How do we, through job
training and other innovative ideas, potentially help those who
can successfully transition off and celebrate this moment
because the opportunity for meaningful work and hopefully
rising wages soon is on the horizon? That is the architecture
of the main question.
The second question is, I want to go back to what I said
earlier. You cannot have a food and nutrition program in
isolation from the concepts of health; food as medicine. And I
think we are all learning very, very rapidly that a holistic
approach to health demands that food be an integral part of the
approach here.
So would you comment on both of those, the prospect for
both of those outcomes?
Mr. Lipps. Sure. Thanks for that, Mr. Fortenberry.
I will say one thing that I think all of us in this room
can agree on and that we can rally behind is the Employment and
Training Program that Congress has authorized for the SNAP
program. We got a small increase in that in the Farm Bill. The
agency has taken a number of actions, prior to my arrival and
since my arrival, to focus our efforts on that front. It is a
good time in this economy for people to move back in to work
and for them to find economic mobility on that front.
Mr. Fortenberry. Let's say meaningful work. It is very
important that we make a distinction here. Not just labor force
participation. That is impersonal. Meaningful work where people
have real opportunity to advance.
Mr. Lipps. That is right. Let me talk about that for a
minute.
Mr. Fortenberry. And that has been one of the structural
constraints that don't allow people to move forward.
Mr. Lipps. Right. With regard to the Employment and
Training Program, the Agency has taken a very specific focus in
ensuring that individuals are moved into the type of an
employment and training program that moves them into meaningful
work, that we are not just putting them on a job search.
That may be an important component of what they are doing,
but I have had the great pleasure in my job of going around and
seeing these individuals participating in the Employment and
Training Program and hearing the stories of formerly
incarcerated individuals who were estranged from their families
going through these training programs and learning not only a
particular skill set that gets them meaningful work, but the
basics of being able to hold on and to keep a job and being
reunited with their family that they are then providing for.
I had the opportunity to meet those people. Employment and
Training is doing that. It is wonderful program that Congress
has funded and provided us some additional money in the Farm
Bill. We continue----
Mr. Fortenberry. Are your successes manifesting themselves
in aggregate statistics versus anecdotes yet?
Mr. Lipps. I think we are on the verge of that happening.
In some States we see that happen.
One of the initiatives that you-all provided some funds for
in the appropriations bill was one of the problems that States
have in advancing this program is tracking this and being able
to report what is required to receive these Federal dollars. So
you-all provided some money for us to be able to help States
with the IT on that side.
NUTRITION PROGRAMS AND HEALTH
Mr. Fortenberry. Okay. Let's come back to that perhaps
later, but talk again about the alignment of food nutrition and
health and what you are doing in terms of policy planning in
this regard.
Mr. Lipps. Sure. That starts at FNS with our youngest
population in WIC. We all know, there is a lot of data out
there that if the youngest of these children don't get the
nutrition they need at that early age, there is no way to
correct that. Later in the life, some of that can be corrected
but not on WIC. And so we look at that as an across-the-
lifespan perspective, both as we produce the Dietary Guidelines
for Americans, but also as we look at our programs in ensuring
that that nutrition is----
Mr. Fortenberry. Okay. As one of the early founders of the
Farm to School Program and movement, again, you can see what we
are trying to do: Provide nutritious, fresh options,
enculturating it, socializing it, and creating actually the
infrastructure that makes it possible for this type of linkage
to occur in an ongoing fashion in the future. That is one of
the program areas, I think, we need to build on to accomplish
this goal of nutritious food.
Mr. Lipps. Anecdotally Farm to School is having great
success on our children's health.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. Ms. Pingree.
SNAP--PARTICIPATION
Ms. Pingree. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Lipps, for being with us today. I just want
to start by echoing the chair's--and I am sure some of my other
colleagues feel the same way--having these significant concerns
about the suite of the USDA's proposed rules that will
negatively impact SNAP participation.
Last month, a bipartisan delegation from my State sent a
letter to the USDA expressing our opposition to the proposed
rule on categorical eligibility. According to the USDA's own
estimate, seven States, including Maine, would see more than a
15 percent--would see more than 15 percent of SNAP households
lose eligibility if that rule moves forward. The Maine
Department of Health and Human Services found that nearly 27
percent of all SNAP participants in our State are at risk of
losing benefits under the proposed rule.
In the delegation's letter we wrote: For a State like Maine
that is already struggling with food insecurity, these changes
would be detrimental to the very population the program is
designed to support.
I just want to reemphasize that point. We are just talking
about food here. I believe that everyone has the right to
healthy and nutritious food. So these SNAP-proposed rules are
just unconscionable to me. They are only going to worsen the
hunger in Maine's most vulnerable populations.
Having anyone go hungry is inexcusable in the world's
wealthiest Nation. I think you should rescind all of these
proposals. I am appalled that we even have to have this hearing
and defend this to the USDA and the Administration. Congress
already spoke about what we thought we should do, and it is
appalling that you are trying to reverse that.
But I am going to leave it there and move on, because I am
pretty sure you and I not going to agree on this and you are
going to move forward, but we are going do whatever we can.
WATER CONSUMPTION IN NUTRITION PROGRAMS
So completely on a different topic, but also about food and
hunger, I am also a big believer that food is medicine, as the
Ranking Member mentioned. And I want to switch gears and talk
about the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages. Sugar-
sweetened beverages have been causally linked to obesity, type
2 diabetes, heart disease, and dental decay. The healthcare
costs associated with diet-related diseases is an incredible
burden to our country, and these diet-related diseases are
especially prevalent in our youth population, robs many of our
young people of the health--with the healthy future they
deserve.
I know everybody is familiar with the MyPlate and how it
informs programs like the National School Lunch Program, but if
you look at this, something you don't see in here is a glass of
water. One in five United States youth and young adults did not
drink any water yesterday. We need to encourage kids to drink
more water. It is essential for their good health, and it also
helps reduce the intake of sugar-sweetened beverages.
So what actions are the USDA taking to better encourage
water consumption in our younger populations, whether that is
the National School Lunch Program, WIC, or the Child and Adult
Care Food Program? And beyond the access to water, what is the
USDA doing to make sure that that water is safe?
Mr. Lipps. Sure. Ms. Pingree, I agree with you about those
statements on the importance of the dietary guidelines and the
concerns that you mentioned around sugar-sweetened beverages.
As you know, the school meals program has specific requirements
with regard to added sugars within the school meals program and
what can be sold in schools, even outside the school meals
program on that front.
With regard to the scientific evidence that supported these
GHDs (ph) in the past, I think you know the importance of the
milk being on MyPlate. Water is important. We give a lot of
technical assistance and advice to schools on ensuring that
children are drinking water and staying hydrated, in addition
to the milk that is an important part of the dietary
guidelines. And our WIC nutritionists do work across that front
as well.
Ms. Pingree. Would you send me more information about what
kind of technical assistance you provide, also what you are
doing to make sure that water is safe in schools and other
places where children would be drinking it?
Mr. Lipps. Sure.
[The information follows:]
In 2016, the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) issued a memorandum
to remind Child Nutrition Program operators that children must have
access to drinking water and to identify resources that can be used by
schools and child care facilities in meeting this requirement. The
memorandum also notes that operators may use program funds for costs
related to obtaining drinking water or testing the safety of water
supplies. This memorandum also includes links to resources on safe
drinking water and testing for lead and other contaminants, as well as
additional technical assistance related to water quality.
SP 49--2016, CACFP 18--2016 [https://
www.fns.usda.gov/resources-making-potable-water-available-
schools-and-child-care-facilities-0]: Resources for Making
Potable Water Available in Schools and Child Care Facilities
Ms. Pingree. Okay. I will leave it with that.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Lipps. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. The gentlelady from California, Ms. Lee.
Ms. Lee. Good morning.
Mr. Lipps. Good morning.
SNAP--BROAD-BASED CATEGORICAL ELIGIBILITY
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for
this hearing.
I am glad to get to know you. And I want to just say a
couple of things, associating myself with the remarks of my
colleagues already. The cases you cited early on, I am not an
attorney. By profession, I am a clinical social worker, but I
do know that law students are taught that worst case makes bad
law. And so you cited maybe 3, 5 percent of the worst cases to
justify many of these very terrible, terrible policies that you
are putting forward.
USDA has issued the three proposed rules to SNAP now. I
also have to say that I am a former food stamp recipient. So
personally, I am deeply disturbed by these proposals, because I
know what this means for people who are living on the edge.
Three quarters of a million people will lose their SNAP
benefits on the work requirements. And think, 3.1 million
people, that is including, by your own analysis released
yesterday, it is 1 million children that will lose automatic
access to free school meals, even worse than we feared. And
most recently as of this month, 800,000 households would lose
SNAP eligibility under the standard utility allowance.
Yesterday, I received a copy of your response to my letter
with Majority Leader Steny Hoyer opposing the SNAP categorical
eligibility rule, which I find to be incredibly lacking in
substance. You mentioned in your response in the letter that
these revisions will, and I will quote, ``maintain categorical
eligibility's dual purpose of streamlining program
administration, while ensuring that SNAP benefits are provided
to those most in need.''
So, Mr. Lipps, exactly how would you maintain these
provisions if you are taking away assistance from 3.1 million
individuals, including 1 million children, by your own
analysis, and taking important folks' States rights away? Has
USDA done an impact analysis of the administrative burden that
this would actually place on States?
Also, let me just ask you, because I want to complete my
questions, share with the Committee clear evidence, clear
evidence that cutting people off of food benefits removes
barriers to work. How does this really help them find a job?
Actually, 50, 60 percent of people who are eligible for SNAP
benefits are working. They are working two or three jobs
because they can't afford to survive with the economy being
what it is.
And you mention formerly incarcerated individuals. And I am
wondering, are you helpful and being supportive of the several
programs that are circulating--several policies in legislation
to lift the ban on SNAP benefits which was put into place which
prevent formerly incarcerated individuals from accessing SNAP
benefits?
Mr. Lipps. Thanks, Representative. First, with regard to
categorical eligibility, I do want to clarify that the rule the
Administration is proposing is refining categorical
eligibility. So with regard to broad-based categorical
eligibility, we are returning to categorical eligibility as it
was originally implemented. Categorical eligibility is
generally implemented in such that a program with the same
eligibility standards or more restrictive eligibility standards
confers eligibility on programs that have broader eligibility
standards to ensure that people can get around having to fill
out multiple applications to access those programs.
We have an instance now where programs who are not making
an eligibility determination but are handing out brochures are
conferring eligibility for other programs, which is causing the
negative news stories on this program that we see over and
over.
Even under the rule, as it was proposed--and we are
considering the comments now--individuals who qualify for TANF
services, as they did when categorical eligibility was
initiated, will continue to qualify for SNAP. And that dual
purpose will be maintained, ensuring that both we have
integrity but that individuals continue to have categorical
eligibility for both TANF and SNAP.
With regard to your question on the impact for burden on
States--I tried to write down all your questions, but if I miss
some, I am sure you will remind me. Impact with burden on
States, there is an analysis of that in the Regulatory Impact
Analysis that accompanies the rule. We can follow up with you
on those exact numbers. I don't have them offhand.
[The information follows:]
The Regulatory Impact Analysis published with the proposed rule,
Revision of Categorical Eligibility in the Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP) estimates that States will incur additional
administrative costs of $1.157 billion over five years. This estimate
includes both the ongoing administrative costs per case, as well as
one-time costs to make required system changes and updates to handbooks
and other materials.
Furthermore, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995, the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) prepared an analysis
estimating the proposed rule's additional burden on State Agencies.
Notice of this information collection was included in the July 24,
2019, Federal Register notice regarding the proposed rule. FNS'
analysis estimated that compliance with the information collection
requirements associated with the proposed rule would add an annual
3,622,736.20 burden hours to the 53 State SNAP Agencies to conduct
additional required verifications.
Proposed Rule, Revision of Categorical Eligibility in the SNAP:
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/07/24/2019-15670/
revision-of-categorical-eligibility-in-the-supplemental-nutrition-
assistance-program-snap
Regulatory Impact Analysis:
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FNS-2018-0037-0002
Certainly, when States conduct an actual eligibility
determination, there is an additional step, and there is some
required assessment for the States to put them in the program.
But, again, we believe, per this rule, that it is an important
step to ensure that individuals are eligible for the program
benefits that they are receiving, and that is a protection as
much for the people on the program as it is for the tax dollars
as well.
SNAP ELIGIBILITY
Ms. Lee. Formerly incarcerated individuals with eligibility
for SNAP benefits.
Mr. Lipps. Yes. I am not familiar with the particular
proposals with which you refer, but the Agency does work with
States on this. There are some that are working, that have
received waivers to sign people up for SNAP prior to their
release from prison to ensure that they have those supports as
they come out. And we have issued some waivers on that front
and are generally supportive of those type policies.
FOOD DISTRIBUTION PROGRAMS ON RESERVATIONS
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to say a
couple of words.
What this witness just said, I don't understand then why,
by your own analysis, 1 million children are going to lose
their automatic benefits to free meals based on your
presentation.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Lipps. Sure.
Mr. Bishop. Ms. McCollum.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I am assuming we
will have an opportunity for two questions, so I will just
stick to my first one here.
Taking you back to what happened during the shutdown and
looking at 2018, the Farm Bill authorized a new program that
allowed tribal organizations to enter into self-determination
contracts to oversee food distribution on Indian reservations,
promoting tribal sovereignty, and helping to meet specific
tribal and cultural needs.
The committee included $3 million for this demonstration
project, and the demonstration project ran into a huge problem
because you didn't have a program that you would work with the
Tribes for contingency of a planned shutdown. This left
families that were already vulnerable to food shortages facing
additional uncertainty.
So can you please provide us any update on any
conversations, consultations that you have had with tribal
organizations, what USDA has put in progress to implement the
new demonstration project, in general, but any safeguards you
would have during a shutdown?
And, Mr. Chair, I have with me what was submitted to
another Committee, testimony from Mary Greene Trottier from the
Spirit Lake Nation, president of the National Association of
Food Distribution Programs on Indian Reservations (FDPIR).
Another issue that they had on Tribal reservations were the
best used-by dates. And when best used-by dates for delivery of
food that wasn't given to the Tribes wasn't met, the food was
donated to food shelves rather than the buffalo meat go to the
Tribes.
Could you just fill in here what is going on with Tribal
consultation and how this will never happen again in the
future?
Mr. Lipps. Sure. Thank you, Representative. First with
regard to the shutdown, we all acknowledge that those are very
difficult times, particularly in programs that ensure that
individuals have access to food. It wasn't a time that any of
us enjoyed. You are right about the difficulties that the
Tribes have raised with the concern over having access to food
during that time.
I don't believe that we resulted in any actual issues with
being able to get food out this round. There was an issue in
the past that has caused great concern for the Tribes for right
reasons, and we continue to work with them on that.
Ms. McCollum. Excuse me, sir. When you said food this
round, are you talking about the current shutdown--the last
shutdown?
Mr. Lipps. Yes, ma'am, during the shutdown.
Ms. McCollum. There were Federal facilities controlled by
the USDA that were locked on Tribal reservations and the Tribes
couldn't even get the food out themselves when they offered to
remove food from there, and I have this in the testimony. So I
don't know what you are referring to.
Mr. Lipps. I am not aware of that issue, Representative. We
will look into that and get back with you on that answer. I was
not aware that that became an issue for FDPIR during the most
recent shutdown, but we will look into that and get back with
you on an answer on that.
[The information follows:]
There are no existing federal facilities controlled by USDA
on tribal lands. USDA food were available and tribes had the
ability to order and receive food from USDA during the
shutdown. USDA does operate two warehouses in the country that
house and ship food ordered by tribes; both were open during
the shutdown. We did learn that some tribes were unable to open
their tribal owned storage and food facilities due to a lack of
administrative funding. This resulted in tribes' inability to
pay staff who worked in those facilities.
FDPIR--SELF DETERMINATION PILOT
I will say, with regard to self-determination, which the
Tribes do believe will help solve this and other issues for
them, we are excited to work with the Tribes on this self-
determination pilot and to, hopefully, prove successful for
them on that front. I believe we have had--I have had
personally seven consultations with the Tribes in my 2 years at
Food and Nutrition Service, and we are working very hard on
that relationship to make sure that we understand their needs
and that we are listening and being attentive to those. Ms.
Trottier is at most of those consultations, and we have had
great discussions on that front.
Unfortunately, we can't take significant action on the
self-determination project until it is funded, because it was
authorized and we are prohibited from doing that, but we are
excited to see that money in the appropriations bill and did
start discussing that specifically with the Tribes at the last
consultation.
Ms. McCollum. Mr. Chair, I have another question, but--I
have another question but I don't have enough time in this
round, so I will yield back.
PUERTO RICO
Mr. Bishop. I thank the gentlelady.
Mr. Lipps, I want to take a moment to focus on Puerto Rico.
In 2017, in wake of Hurricane Maria, Congress made available an
additional $1.27 billion in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program funding for Puerto Rico. Then in June, Congress
provided another $600 million. Unlike States, Puerto Rico is
uniquely dependent on Congress for funds in the event of an
emergency or a natural disaster. Even with these additional
benefits, Puerto Rican households barely manage to receive
comparable benefits as compared to the households in the 50
States.
Given that fact, the continued recovery from Hurricane
Maria and the high level of poverty in Puerto Rico, what are
your specific recommendations for reducing food insecurity in
Puerto Rico?
Mr. Lipps. Thanks for that question, Mr. Chairman. We at
FNS do a lot of work with Puerto Rico on that front. We have
five staff permanently on the ground in Puerto Rico who work
with them on a regular occasion, and we provide a lot of
technical assistance and advice in carrying out the Nutrition
Assistance Program (NAP), which Congress has funded for them,
to help ensure that that works, and WIC and our other programs
that operate across Puerto Rico.
As you noted, they are not authorized in the SNAP program.
They have a NAP grant, which operates differently than the SNAP
program, and so we do everything that we can to help them
within the confines of what Congress has provided for them.
FOOD PURCHASE AND DISTRIBUTION PROGRAM
Mr. Bishop. Okay. Let me switch gears and talk about the
Food Purchase and Distribution Program. This summer, USDA
announced the details for a second farmer relief package in
response to the ongoing trade war. The Market Facilitation
Program, which accounts for most of the money, is
understandably getting the most attention. However, the Food
Purchase and Distribution Program has received $1.4 billion for
the purchase and distribution of surplus commodities that were
affected by trade disruptions.
In fiscal year 2019--while in the fiscal year 2019 bill, in
response to the first farmer assistance package, which provided
$1.2 billion for the Food Purchase and Distribution Program,
Congress provided nearly $110 million for The Emergency Food
Assistance Program (TEFAP) administration. This included a one-
time $30 million transfer for some unobligated balances to help
manage all of the product that was being purchased and flowing
into the food banks. Did FNS utilize all of that $110 million?
And now that there is a second round, what are the
resources that are needed for this fiscal year, and what are
you hearing from the food banks?
Mr. Lipps. Sure. Thanks for that question, Mr. Chairman. We
will get back with you on an exact number on that $110 million.
I expect that we used most, if not all of it, as we were very
successful in the partnership with food banks and schools and
Tribes and others on moving out funds--moving out food on that
first round of the food distribution program related to
mitigation.
And as we move into the second round, we have been in
conversation with food banks about their needs in this round.
The first round ensured that we had a specific amount of money
that we said followed the truck to ensure that that money made
it to the end location for whoever was delivering that food had
the resources that they need to get it out. We are working with
food banks to figure out what that right number is and make
sure that they have the resources to help us deliver that food
to folks in need.
[The information follows:]
As is the case in most years, TEFAP State and local
agencies used nearly all the TEFAP administrative funding
provided to them in FY2019. Because the amount of TEFAP
commodities, including bonus and other commodities, has not
changed from FY 2019, FNS anticipates a need for a commensurate
level of TEFAP administrative funding in FY 2020.
SCHOOL LUNCH SHAMING
Mr. Bishop. Okay. As I indicated, Mr. Lipps, in my opening
statement, I am increasingly alarmed by the reports of schools
publicly shaming children over their school lunch debt. No
person, let alone a child, should be subject to that type of
ridicule and embarrassment.
What tools does FNS have in place that can be used to
address this problem, and do you need more authorities from
Congress?
Mr. Lipps. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. One of the more
important questions I think that we discussed on this front is
certainly lunch shaming. Obviously, we all know that the
overwhelming majority of schools do a great job administering
the program. There have been too many news stories for sure
about children who have been the subject of lunch shaming, and
we need to do all that we can on that front.
The agency has taken a number of steps over the years to
work on that and I believe has taken all of the action that we
feel we can at this point, the most significant being that
schools have to have a policy for unpaid lunch debt. They have
to communicate that with their workers and they have to
communicate that with the parents so that everybody
understands.
And there is a prohibition about identifying children in
the free or reduced-price program. So to the extent that there
are reduced-price students being identified, there is already a
prohibition against that.
But it is an important, difficult subject we talk to
schools about regularly, and I think it is an important issue
on which USDA will engage on technical assistance as Congress
looks at reauthorizing child nutrition.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Lipps.
Mr. Fortenberry.
FARM TO SCHOOL
Mr. Fortenberry. Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let's return to the Farm to School Program. I would like to
hear your analysis of the success of the program and any
challenges that you are facing.
Again, I think this is exciting at many levels, introducing
local, nutritious foods into the diets of young people,
creating that linkage back to farmer to family, rural to urban.
It has a lot of levels of social meaning beyond just the
nutritional outcome.
So talk about the implementation of the program. I have the
basic statistics, 3.2 million students served, but the
possibilities for further expansion, as well as any problems
you are encountering. And let's do that for 1 minute, then I am
going to turn to a couple of other things.
Mr. Lipps. Sure. Mr. Fortenberry, it is another wonderful
thing I get to see out on the road is Farm to School Program.
And I have seen anecdotally, when you talk to the kids
participating in those programs, it is inspiring them not only
to better health as they talk about new fruits and vegetables
they have tried and those that they now continue to eat.
Mr. Fortenberry. It is amazing how the nutritionists in
schools know how to place certain foods that create a, I guess,
psychological preference. I have learned this too.
Mr. Lipps. They do a wonderful job, and you can see it at
really about any of those locations. But also, it inspires in
those kids, you know, talking to kids who come from low-income
families about aspirations to be botanists and careers in
agriculture and different types of things. So there is success
across with Farm to School. And I think that it is having
anecdotally a greater effect on schools--on children's healthy
choices, being able to participate in that than any of the
programs that we run. So we are very excited about that.
The additional money that Congress has provided, the $5
million the last 2 years, has really helped expand that
program. One request that we do have from the agency and the
President's budget is that the limit of $100,000 be able to be
moved up to $500,000. It will allow schools to operate programs
over--have funds to operate those programs over a longer term
as they get them established, but also as you look at some of
your larger school districts, to have projects that can serve--
--
Mr. Fortenberry. Mr. Chairman, maybe we can make note of
that. I think that is an important point that was just made, so
as we work on the next bill. I think that is a good point.
Thank you.
Mr. Lipps. Yes, sir.
Mr. Fortenberry. Secondly, while--let me wrap this up with
by saying, again, there is a tendency in government to define
our activities around the lanes in which they have
traditionally been defined which met a type of need sometime in
the past. So it is easier to be confined to what is than to
think about what could be.
And, again, this alignment of food, nutrition, and health
is absolutely critical if we are going to take a holistic
approach to the ecosystem of livability for persons which
fundamentally centers around health and nutrition, food, as
well as the possibilities of, in constrained budget times,
moving across sectors to improve outcomes while reducing costs.
And, third, resocializing concepts, which used to be the norm;
again, the farmer connected to the family, the rural urban
integration which we have lost.
The next iteration of this--and I will talk to you about it
some point, Mr. Chairman--is the idea of agricultural programs
either revitalized or embedded in schools. Why in the world
botany can't be about growing things at school that then get
fed to kids. We are exploring this back home. That is mostly
local issues, but there is a Federal role here as well.
DIETARY GUIDELINES
I am going to divert for a moment to a recent study in the
Annals of Internal Medicine that says that red meat consumption
may very well be okay after all. Now, I come from cattle
country, as you are quite aware, and this is important to us,
because when we are talking about the multitude of studies and
information that comes at people, at some point in time one
thing is bad, then suddenly it is good.
Now, are you familiar with this study, and will the new
dietary guidelines look at animal protein consumption as an
important part of that guideline versus heavy carbohydrates?
Mr. Lipps. Yes, sir. Again, I appreciate that question. As
you all know, we are in the middle of the dietary guidelines
process. The advisory committee is reviewing the evidence now.
One of the problems that we have with Americans' health is that
we hear these different headlines all the time. Today something
is good; tomorrow it is bad. Americans don't know what to do
with that. The dietary guidelines process should help clear
that out for everyone, and that is what the process is designed
to do.
So they will consider issues such as these as they consider
the dietary patterns of Americans and what the research shows
on that front. And all of the evidence that was considered in
that recent headline is available for consideration per the
committee. They will set their own protocol for the systematic
reviews that they will review, but they are not excluding any
of that evidence.
Mr. Fortenberry. The same thing could be said for whole
milk or 2 percent milk, that the rates of obesity took off
prior to when there were higher levels--I mean--I am sorry--
after there were higher levels of actual high levels of
consumption of whole milk and 2 percent milk. This is another
thing that I think that needs to be reexamined that has
possibly gotten confused over the last few years.
Mr. Lipps. Yes, sir.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Bishop. Ms. Pingree.
FOOD WASTE IN SCHOOLS
Ms. Pingree. Thank you very much.
And I do want to echo the remarks of the ranking member on
this. I agree on the great value in Farm to School. It is all
the things you said. Kids benefit from having more interaction
with local farms. It is good for the rural economy and,
increasingly, the interest in school gardens, more school food
preparation that kids are engaged in, education around
agriculture and gardening; all very good things and I think
really engage kids in that.
And I have seen a lot of examples of it visiting school
lunch programs where kids, you know, think every carrot is the
one that they grew, think, you know, kale is actually tasty
now, you know, lots of great things. And I hear it from parents
too, say, my kids came home and told me about a vegetable we
don't normally eat. So anyway, I think that is all very good,
and I encourage even more of it.
I want to just ask a quick question on food waste
reduction. I am very interested in that. Something like 30
percent of the food in this country is wasted. That is an
environmental issue. It is a huge challenge when so many people
are going hungry and don't have access to healthy food, and we
need to do a lot more to fix the problem.
I am a co-chair of the Food Recovery Caucus with Mr.
Newhouse, and we have been looking for ways to reduce food
waste all across the supply chain. I know there have been a lot
of concerns about food waste in schools, sometimes just because
kids don't have enough time to eat their meal. Waste audits can
help schools better understand waste in schools, what is being
wasted, how much is being wasted, and why. This information can
be really valuable in changing the behavior or identifying
opportunities to reduce waste.
Does FNS provide schools with any resources or technical
assistance to the schools so that they can conduct waste
audits?
Mr. Lipps. Representative, I am not sure we do specifically
with regard to waste audits, but I know that we give a lot of
technical assistance on that front. We can get you a list of
what those things are. And certainly, the Secretary has made
food waste a priority. We are looking at more opportunities to
help schools with that now, and I agree with you that it is an
important issue that we can address together.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.184
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.185
Ms. Pingree. Great. Well, let's be in touch with this. I
agree that the Secretary has been very supportive on this and
worked on it and certainly has some, you know, serious goals
about reducing food waste, but we have to move faster and we
have to confront it on all fronts. So I hope we can continue to
discuss that.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Bishop. Ms. Lee.
SCHOOL LUNCH SHAMING
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Once again, I would like to bring--you raised this in your
opening statement, the issue around lunch shaming and what is
taking place right now, because far too many children find
themselves humiliated and ashamed in classrooms for owing money
for school lunches. What is worse, many of these children are
forced to go hungry for unpaid school meals, which is just
plain wrong.
Unfortunately--and this is according to the School
Nutrition Association--it is not an uncommon issue. Three
quarters of school districts have unpaid meal--student meal
debt, and we don't even know how many students are being turned
away because of this very shameful policy.
Now, in California, just this last Saturday, Governor
Newsom signed into law a measure banning this practice for all
K-12 school children. In my own district, where the school meal
program--and let me remind you that the School Breakfast
Program was actually started by the Black Panther Party. In my
district, they have banned this practice for over a decade at
both Oakland and Berkeley schools.
So I am wondering what the administration is doing to
address lunch shaming with the national policy to end it and,
if so, when you are going to do this and how you are going to
do it. And also, how we are going to ensure that schools
communicate to parents and families who have outstanding debt
that they are not going to be able to--they are not going to
shame the students and pressure them to collect this debt.
Mr. Lipps. Sure. Again, Representative Lee, I agree this is
a very important issue and one that we all need to be working
carefully on. The agency has--first, let me say statutorily
that schools may not overtly identify low-income participants
in the school meals program. So there is a statutory
requirement on that front.
With regard to lunch shaming generally, the agency has held
a number of roundtables and sessions with schools to talk about
this issue and the complications with which to resolving this
issue, both with regard to their debt and ensuring that
children have access to food and that they are not shamed.
The agency requires that every school district have a
policy on unpaid school lunch debt and that they communicate
that policy to all of their workers and to all of their parents
so that everyone is of the understanding on how these
communications will happen and that the communication should
happen with the parents and not with the children. So FNS has
put that out and is working with States and school districts to
ensure that it is enforced.
Ms. Lee. Do you provide oversight for that to make sure
that it is enforced?
Mr. Lipps. Yes, ma'am. We check--the States do, but we
provide oversight to the States to ensure that it is enforced
with regard to that policy. We believe that that is the extent.
We continue to work on technical assistance and resources for
schools on how to deal with these issues but, with that, we
believe that that is as far as the agency can go, and we do
stand ready to provide technical assistance to anybody who is
ready to look at that issue, particularly----
Ms. Lee. Okay. I would like to follow up with you, because
I think we need some more sticks on this policy.
Mr. Lipps. Okay.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.186
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.187
FOOD BANKS
Ms. Lee. Let me ask you one more question. With regard to
just some information I have received from my Alameda County
Food Bank, which serves my congressional district, they have
informed me that the shutdown earlier this year has had a long-
lasting impact on hunger. And so I am wondering if USDA has
done anything to help food banks catch up with this unexpected
hit on their food supplies, which came right after, of course,
the holiday season was ending. And are you responding to this
issue in a way to really try to stop this increase in hunger
because of the unfortunate decisions that was made--that had
been made by the President?
Mr. Lipps. Ms. Lee, again, I would acknowledge that
shutdowns are difficult in all programs, particularly in those
that provide food; and there are difficult issues in those that
are hard for everyone to work through. We worked with all of
our programs--FDPIR, TEFAP--to do the best we could to ensure
that food got out to those folks in need. We have worked to
ensure that food banks are receiving all of their shipments
that are due to them to make sure they have the food that is
expected.
And also, I do think that the food that we have been able
to provide through the Trade Mitigation Program has been a
great opportunity for food banks to receive additional support
to help those in need.
Ms. Lee. Okay. But I think the issue is the longer-lasting
impact now on hunger. We are going to have to catch up now, and
we are going to have to do more to make sure food security
doesn't become even a larger problem in this country as a
result directly from the shutdown. So we are going to have to
come up with new ideas to mitigate against this long term.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Bishop. Ms. McCollum.
SNAP--BROAD-BASED CATEGORICAL ELIGIBILITY
Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
I want to go back to the broad-based categorical
eligibility rule. And I am going to use Minnesota as an example
so that, you know, we can have it in bite-sized pieces, so to
speak.
The flexibility to raise SNAP income guideline from 130
percent of Federal poverty--and I am going to put it in real
household numbers--for a family of three, that is $27,000. So
the Federal poverty guideline of 165, that is for a family of
three, for a family of three in the Twin Cities, where we are
having huge problems with people being able to afford housing,
shelter right now, $34,000.
So we are not talking about a lot of money for families. So
these are not wealthy families. And as my colleague from
California pointed out, sometimes they are already working
sometimes one or two jobs while they are taking care of their
children.
Minnesota adopted this policy for the flexibility to raise
the SNAP income guidelines in 2010, and it helped streamline
our State's management for delivery of SNAP. It increased
access to basic food assistance to low-income families.
On September 6, a letter from the commissioner of
Minnesota's Department of Human Services went to the office,
your office, about this proposed rule. And I read from it,
quote: Apart from increasing hunger and reducing poverty
efficiency, this program--proposed rule will leave Minnesota's
vulnerable during an economic crisis.
Right now, our economy is good, but it takes away that
immediate, immediate flexibility for a State to respond when
there is an economic downturn, whether it is in the State,
regionally, or nationally. And your mission on your home page
is, and I quote: Our mission is to increase food security and
to reduce hunger by providing food to low-income people across
with access.
So under this rule, our State has proposed that up to
350,000 Minnesotans--nearly 70 percent of these people are
children, seniors, and adults with disabilities--would lose
their SNAP benefits. So we have done a deep dive into who this
is going to affect: children, seniors, and adults with
disabilities.
And I am going to take the adults with disabilities one
step farther and then let you respond in general. Under current
law, in order to receive more than 3 months of SNAP benefits in
a 3-year time period, a group of adults must either be employed
or enrolled in efficiently organized employment training for 20
hours a week. That is current law. Three months of SNAP
benefits, 3-year time program, you must be employed or
officially recognized employment for 20 hours.
States like Minnesota currently have flexibility to waive
these time limits in certain geographic areas. We have very
rural parts of the district. We have very dense parts. We have
labor intensive. We have farming. We have mining. So we have
very des--you know, disbursed employment. So we like to have
the flexibility for our State to be resilient in a time of
process. So your rule would limit the existing criteria for
granting SNAP waivers, causing many Minnesotans, simply by
where they live, to be at great risk of losing their SNAP
benefits.
So here again, March 29, the commissioner of Minnesota's
Department of Human Services said that if the State's rule were
to go into effect, workers, and I quote, would be forced to
find jobs that are not available to enroll in our employment
services that simply don't exist.
So what are you going to do, as you go back and look at
this for these public comments, for seniors, for children, and
for people working with disabilities?
Mr. Lipps. Sure. Representative, first of all, we are going
to consider all of those comments. We are required to do so and
will do so, and we will review those comments and respond to
each of them as we proceed to the final rule.
With regard to the ABAWD rule, which you mentioned last,
States will still have flexibility. The rule just ensures that
States are not exempting counties of 3-1/2 percent unemployment
from the work requirement that Congress imposed. States also
retain a 12 percent exemption that they can use for any of
their population, particularly for those in rural areas or
particular areas where there may be a pronounced effect that is
not under a waiver.
So there is flexibility maintained in that. We are just
ensuring that the work requirement that Congress put in statute
is enforced as we move forward.
And with regard to broad-based categorical eligibility, I
think that there is an important discussion about what the
right asset and income standards are. We are ensuring that what
Congress has provided in statute for the families we serve is
abided by. And there is an important intersection of other
Federal programs that work to support those things, and there
is always a great discussion to be had about how we can better
support families in those intersections. And certainly, we
would be willing to provide technical assistance on any of
those fronts.
Ms. McCollum. My time has expired. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
SUMMER EBT PROGRAM
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Lipps, it has been almost a decade since
Congress authorized what has become known as the Summer EBT
program. The evaluation of this program has been rigorous and
the findings unambiguous that the results of the Summer EBT
demonstration are clear that the program is feasible, and the
impacts on food security and children's nutrition are positive
and substantial.
Despite the successful results and the fact that summer
months can be some of the most uncertain times for children
that are facing food insecurity, last year, USDA changed this
approach to focus on new projects that will test, quote,
innovative strategies. The request for applications also stated
that the projects will be competitively selected.
Over the summer, FNS published a blog, by you, detailing a
collaboration between USDA and Baylor University to demonstrate
a summer meals project. Will you describe this project in Texas
and tell us whether it was competitively selected or how the
funding was approved? And is this an attempt to pilot the
Harvest Box program which received such strong opposition here
in this committee and in the authorizing committee?
Mr. Lipps. Sure. Mr. Chairman, that was not an attempt to
pilot the Harvest Box program. That was an attempt to solve an
issue that Congress has asked us to work on in a number of
appropriations bills and for which we have not found a
solution, which is rural and frontier hunger in the summer
meals program.
That was funded. We funded it under a competitive process.
I think you all are aware that this program, Summer EBT as it
has become known, is a demonstration project that has been
running for a number of years. And we have great data on that--
you are correct--and we reported that back to Congress, and we
continue to fund those pilots for a number of States, while
leaving the rest of the States without and without having a
discussion about that.
And so we at USDA decided that we should start testing new
methodologies as we move forward to provide Congress more
information so we can make a decision--so that Congress can
make a decision with our technical assistance on how best to
move forward in solving summer hunger, which we all agree is an
issue.
This proposal came to us with an opportunity to provide
food to those in rural and frontier communities, an opportunity
to solve that problem. We think that it had an opportunity to
meet a number of those needs, and we have proceeded forward on
that front. It is going to have an evaluation run by the Urban
Institute, that is going tell us how that works. And
anecdotally, we got very great reviews from the participants in
the program and the schools that participated in that, a school
which also runs the summer feeding program, I might add, but
they note that this is a separate issue that hasn't been solved
and for which everybody talks about but we haven't seen any
solutions.
And so we are excited to see if the data shows what we are
seeing anecdotally, that this may be an opportunity, not to
change the summer meals program overall, but particularly for
those rural and frontier communities where we have been asked
to work.
Mr. Bishop. I am going to yield the remainder of my time at
this point to Mr. Fortenberry, and I will come back after Ms.
McCollum with one more question.
SNAP--IMPROPER PAYMENTS
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lipps, let's talk about the--I think it is 6.8 percent
error rate that has been mentioned in the program, improper
payment rate, either those receiving too much or those not
receiving enough.
So--okay. I am going to make you a deal, and I am sorry Ms.
Pingree is gone, because I think she would like this. Why don't
you get that error rate down from seven to five, recognizing
any program is going to have some error, some slippage? You are
dealing with States and human contingencies and on and on. You
get it from seven to five, about a third reduction, and we will
take that one-third and move it into the Farm to School
Program, which is about $1.2 billion, by the way. So the total
error rate problem translates into over $4 billion. So will you
take that deal?
Mr. Lipps. I don't have authority to agree to that, Mr.
Fortenberry, but I like it.
Mr. Fortenberry. Okay.
Mr. Lipps. I will say that.
Mr. Fortenberry. Here is the goal. Obviously, this is a bit
tongue in cheek, but the goal is to--nobody wants to waste
money. Nobody wants to see people cheating the system. To the
degree that we can reduce that error, you actually empower
other programs that are producing significantly good results,
Farm to School being one of them.
DIETARY GUIDELINES
Let me turn back, though, to the issue of dietary
guidelines, which we touched on a moment ago. So these began in
1980, and there is a correlation to increasing obesity rates
that began at the same time. Now, there is probably a lot of
complex variables in there, so you can't blame it exclusively
on the dietary guidelines. But what type of correlation do you
see?
In 1980, we saw obesity at rates of 15 percent and--for
adults, 5 percent for children. Now it is staggering, 40
percent for adults and 19 percent for youth. What do you
attribute that to?
Mr. Lipps. This is always an important part of the
discussion with regard to science, Mr. Fortenberry, is
correlation versus causation, and it is an important issue that
we have to continue to look at and discuss.
What you said about dietary guidelines is true. What we
also know is that most Americans don't abide by the dietary
guidelines. I think the agency has a lot of work to do on that
front. We have started some different initiatives called Start
Simple, just trying to get Americans to do a few things. We
make them too complex and they ignore them.
So there is much work to be done across that front. We want
to make sure that the science is analyzed in an open and
transparent way and that all science is considered and they are
making recommendations based on the whole of the science and
not the headline of the day, which is what we talked about
earlier. So it is an important issue, and we will continue to
look at those.
Mr. Fortenberry. Well, I think it begs the question as to
how much authority you now have in the space, because you have
been subsumed into the information age where there is so much
competing dynamics. Yeah, a new study will come out by a new
institute almost on a daily basis that says something that
contradicts prevailing thought processes.
So how do you reposition yourself in terms of being the
authoritative guideline and have the humility to be
continuously self-reflective to make sure that we aren't making
some error here and that we aren't part of the causation with
some dietary guideline that is maybe partially misinformed?
Mr. Lipps. Right. And if, you know, there is a suggestion
that that is the case, then we should review that carefully. I
think with regard to people trusting what the government has to
say in this space, the process has to be open, transparent,
inclusive, and based on science. And when we set out in this
process, that is what USDA set out to do. I think that is what
they set out to do last time. There were a lot of concerns
about that.
So we are doing everything we can to increase transparency
and opportunity for input in the process to make sure that
everybody cease that sausage as it is made. And one of the
things that the secretaries--this is not just USDA, it is HHS--
but are committed to, we talked about at the beginning, is that
if the government is not sure, that we ought not to speak.
And so we need to make sure that when we are looking at the
science, that we are speaking on those things of which we have
great data to show that that may affect health or not, and that
we are not moving back and forth with the headline of the day
when the government speaks.
Mr. Fortenberry. Well, I think it is a good news and bad
news story. I think there is a growing awareness of this
problem, again, of food and health relationship. I think there
is a growing awareness again of the word ``wellness'' has been
fully incorporated into most vocabularies. People are very much
aware that the stressful dynamics of our overbusyness and
scheduling are taking us away from what used to be traditional
times for meals and socialization around meals, and yet at the
same time, interestingly, the market dynamics that drove that
problem are driving it back, as people are looking for, again,
places that serve quality fresh food, particularly in
restaurants, at affordable prices. But this is changing in
terms of the grocery dynamics as well.
So there is some good news on this front, but I am fearful
that, again, the government has lost a certain amount of
authority in this regard that, again, the dynamics of too much
information being out there confuse it, combined with the
modern life, has put increasing pressure on people and is
resulting in this health decline.
So I know it is a considered part of your agency to look at
this, but I do worry that in the midst of all of this chaos and
turmoil and information overflow, you have lost authority in
this regard.
Mr. Lipps. I think you are right to have some concern on
that front. Again, we want to make sure that folks know what is
happening in the process, and then we have got to talk about
how we talk to people about that.
Mr. Fortenberry. Yeah. Yes.
Mr. Lipps. It is the same as Farm to School.
Mr. Fortenberry. Yes.
Mr. Lipps. You, know, anecdotally, we can change kids by
participating them in the process.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Mr. Lipps.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Ms. McCollum.
CHILD NUTRITION AND HUNGER
Ms. McCollum. Thank you. And thank you for bringing up the
summer challenge that children have with nutrition, Mr. Chair.
I want to take this a step farther. We have weekends
sometimes where we know children are facing food insecurity. We
have 3-day, 4-day weekends. Then we have winter break, we have
spring break, and then we have the summer.
I have had the opportunity to go out and be at some of the
schools that are doing some of the feeding programs, but those
are for children sometimes who can find a way to get to the
summer school program to even participate, because there is
lack of transportation and families being able to get their
children there and then work out the flexibility of daycare for
the rest of the day. And the amount of food that is served is
limited as to what the school is going to be able to prepare
because they are running on a skeleton staff.
What are the real discussions that are taking place behind
the scenes over in the Department? Is this just like, well, if
the kids are in school, are we going to do this? Or are we
really having a conversation, a serious conversation, about the
lack of nutrition that these children are basically going
without, which means they will eat something that will fill
them? And I am not going to mention any brand names and get
somebody in trouble. But, you know, drinking something, eating
something that many people would call junk food becomes
something that is just filling and gets them through the day.
What is really happening? Because our school districts, we
can't put this all on the schools, and that is what is
happening. Our schools are being tasked to do more and more and
criticized for not delivering, you know, a utopia. What are we
doing? What is the USDA doing to really address childhood
nutrition and hunger in this country?
Mr. Lipps. Sure. Representative, you know, this is one of
the more complicated issues that deserves a lot of discussion
as Child Nutrition Reauthorization comes forward. As you know,
that expired in 2016, and it is one of the pivotal issues that
need to be looked at. There are a number of programs out there
to serve children, certainly the school meals programs. Child
and Adult Food Program operates after school, sometimes summer
programs or summer feeding. We don't have authority to run
weekend programs.
So you may know, a lot of nonprofit volunteers, food banks,
et cetera, are running backpack programs on weekends, those
types of things. We have authority to run holidays but not back
ends--sorry--weekends or these breaks. And so that is a very
important issue.
And you know, as I do, you talk to teachers, and they talk
about kids coming back on Monday, having had that gap in the
middle. It is an important issue. We don't have authority to
solve that issue at USDA, but as we are looking at how we
provide food across these fronts, I think it is extremely
important.
And as I talked about, you know, we continue to test these
methodologies on how to get food to the kids. The congregate
sites work very well in some places. I have seen them work very
well citywide. They run busses in the summer to get all the
kids there, but you get outside those city limits and those
kids don't have access and the parents can't get them there.
So we are continuing to innovate on that front to provide
information to Congress as they consider that, but certainly,
hunger outside of school is an issue that is complicated to
solve and one we need to continue to engage in.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
SNAP--STATE CERTIFICATION PRIVATIZATION
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
Mr. Lipps, yesterday, we received notification that FNS
approved a demonstration waiver for the Kentucky Department for
Community Based Services. The waiver allows for the
privatization of core SNAP functions that are currently
administered by civil servants. I think it will come as a shock
to some of my colleagues that vital responsibilities, such as
conducting SNAP eligibility interviews, application assistance,
and application submission, will be contracted out to private
for-profit companies.
Understand this waiver is limited to just one county, but
we already have examples from Texas and Indiana where the
privatization of these services ultimately hurt people and
households that were seeking SNAP. In Texas, for example,
applicants waited longer than the required 30-day eligibility
determination. In both cases, it is my understanding that the
States ultimately stopped these experiments.
Shifting services from public to private contractors shifts
the incentives and it eliminates program expertise. Now, the
Kentucky Department for Community Based Services requested the
waiver in part to improve customer service.
Is that a failure on the part of the Food and Nutrition
Service? What can FNS do to help State agencies improve the
customer service so that they don't have to resort to this
extreme remedy of contracting out? And can this be terminated
before 24 months if it is not working appropriately?
Mr. Lipps. Mr. Chairman, we are working to ensure that we
have all appropriate oversight measures in place to ensure that
this is working. Certainly, if it is showing a negative effect
on recipients an earlier time, we will do everything necessary
to ensure that the recipients are protected and receive their
benefits moving forward.
What Kentucky is asking to do are things that Congress has
allowed them to do in many of the other low-income programs.
And I hear continually when I am out, from various different
States, about the difficulty in trying to administer these
programs when they are allowed to use one type of contractor in
one situation and not in another. And some of that is on
situations as simple as a SNAP recipient calling into a State
call center and not being able to get basic information on
their SNAP case or the status of their application. So that is
step 1 of that.
This waiver does allow Kentucky to go a little bit further
with that same staff conducting the interview on SNAP that they
are conducting across other programs. A similar type of waiver
has been operated in four other States for quite sometime
successfully. With non-profits--you note that this is a for-
profit. States--this State, Kentucky believes that they can
provide better service to the recipient on this front. It has
been a long time since some other States failed on similar but
different measures, and we think it is important that States
have the opportunity to see if they can serve recipients
better.
The waiver is limited to one county. FNS is providing
extensive technical assistance and oversight on this and has
two on-the-ground visits planned as soon as the pilot launches,
and we will keep you all advised on those.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Lipps.
Okay. Thank you so much for being here today. The Food and
Nutrition Service has an enormous responsibility for
administering our Nation's nutrition programs. I appreciate
your taking time to hear our concerns and to answer our
questions. We will forward any additional questions that we may
have for the record, and we appreciate your diligence in
getting responses to us in a timely manner.
Again, thank you for continuing to work with us, and we
look forward to continuing your mission in providing safe and
nutritious food to the American people.
With that, the subcommittee is adjourned.
Mr. Lipps. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Questions and answers submitted for the record follow:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.188
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.189
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.190
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.191
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.192
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.193
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.194
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.195
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.196
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.197
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.198
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.199
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.200
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.201
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.202
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.203
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.204
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.205
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.206
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.207
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.208
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.209
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.210
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.211
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.212
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.213
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.214
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.215
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.216
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.217
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.218
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.219
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.220
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.221
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.222
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.223
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.224
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.225
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.226
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.227
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.228
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.229
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.230
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.231
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.232
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.233
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.234
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.235
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.236
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.237
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.238
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.239
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.240
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.241
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.242
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.243
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.244
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.245
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.246
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.247
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.248
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.249
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.250
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.251
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.252
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.253
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.254
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.255
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.256
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.257
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.258
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.259
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.260
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.261
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.262
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.263
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.264
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.265
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.266
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.267
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.268
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.269
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.270
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.271
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.272
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.273
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.274
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.275
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.276
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.277
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.278
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.279
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.280
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.281
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.282
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.283
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.284
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.285
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.286
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.287
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.288
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.289
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.290
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.291
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.292
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.293
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.294
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.295
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.296
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.297
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.298
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.299
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.300
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.301
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.302
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.303
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.304
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.305
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.306
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.307
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.308
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.309
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.310
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.311
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.312
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.313
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.314
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.315
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.316
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.317
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.318
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.319
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.320
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.321
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.322
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.323
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.324
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.325
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.326
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.327
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.328
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.329
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.330
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.331
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.332
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.333
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.334
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.335
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.336
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.337
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.338
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.339
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.340
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.341
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.342
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.343
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.344
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.345
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.346
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.347
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.348
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.349
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.350
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.351
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.352
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.353
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.354
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.355
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.356
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.357
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.358
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.359
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.360
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.361
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606A.362
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9606P3.001
[all]