[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

MEMBER DAY
=======================================================================

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

----------

MAY 18, 2021

----------

Serial No. 117-6

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture
agriculture.house.gov

__________

U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
47-138 PDF WASHINGTON : 2022

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia, Chairman

JIM COSTA, California GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania,
JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts Ranking Minority Member
FILEMON VELA, Texas AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia
ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina, Vice ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD,
Chair Arkansas
ABIGAIL DAVIS SPANBERGER, Virginia SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee
JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri
ANTONIO DELGADO, New York DOUG LaMALFA, California
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois
CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia
GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN, DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina
Northern Mariana Islands TRENT KELLY, Mississippi
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire DON BACON, Nebraska
CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois DUSTY JOHNSON, South Dakota
SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana
STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands JIM HAGEDORN, Minnesota
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona CHRIS JACOBS, New York
SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California TROY BALDERSON, Ohio
RO KHANNA, California MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas
AL LAWSON, Jr., Florida TRACEY MANN, Kansas
J. LUIS CORREA, California RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa
ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota MARY E. MILLER, Illinois
JOSH HARDER, California BARRY MOORE, Alabama
CYNTHIA AXNE, Iowa KAT CAMMACK, Florida
KIM SCHRIER, Washington MICHELLE FISCHBACH, Minnesota
JIMMY PANETTA, California JULIA LETLOW, Louisiana
ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia

______

Anne Simmons, Staff Director

Parish Braden, Minority Staff Director

(ii)

C O N T E N T S

----------
Page
Scott, Hon. David, a Representative in Congress from Georgia,
opening statement.............................................. 1
Prepared statement........................................... 2
Thompson, Hon. Glenn, a Representative in Congress from
Pennsylvania, opening statement................................ 2

Members

Baird, Hon. James R., a Representative in Congress from Indiana.. 3
Prepared statement........................................... 5
Hinson, Hon. Ashley, a Representative in Congress from Iowa...... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Gonzalez-Colon, Hon. Jenniffer, a Resident Commissioner in
Congress from Puerto Rico...................................... 9
Prepared statement........................................... 10
Feenstra, Hon. Randy, a Representative in Congress from Iowa..... 11
Prepared statement........................................... 12
Johnson, Hon. Dusty, a Representative in Congress from South
Dakota......................................................... 13
Prepared statement........................................... 15
Submitted report............................................. 409
Westerman, Hon. Bruce, a Representative in Congress from Arkansas 16
Prepared statement........................................... 17
Malliotakis, Hon. Nicole, a Representative in Congress from New
York........................................................... 19
Prepared statement........................................... 20
Kahele, Hon. Kaiali`i, a Representative in Congress from Hawaii.. 21
Prepared statement........................................... 22
Lawson, Jr., Hon. Al, a Representative in Congress from Florida.. 23
Prepared statement........................................... 24
Submitted report............................................. 421
Jackson, Hon. Ronny, a Representative in Congress from Texas..... 26
Prepared statement........................................... 27
Arrington, Hon. Jodey C., a Representative in Congress from
Texas, submitted letter........................................ 31
Cohen, Hon. Steve, a Representative in Congress from Tennessee,
submitted letter............................................... 32
Estes, Hon. Ron, a Representative in Congress from Kansas,
submitted statement............................................ 33
Good, Hon. Bob, a Representative in Congress from Virginia,
submitted statement............................................ 33
Neguse, Hon. Joe, a Representative in Congress from Colorado,
submitted statement............................................ 34
Pallone, Jr., Hon. Frank, a Representative in Congress from New
Jersey, submitted letter....................................... 35
Perry, Hon. Scott, a Representative in Congress from
Pennsylvania, submitted statement.............................. 37
Pfluger, Hon. August, a Representative in Congress from Texas,
submitted letter............................................... 38
Sablan, Hon. Gregorio Kilili Camacho, a Delegate in Congress from
Northern Mariana Islands, submitted statement.................. 39
San Nicolas, Hon. Michael F. Q., a Delegate in Congress from
Guam, submitted statement...................................... 40

Submitted Legislation

H.R. 8489, Price Reform In Cattle Economics Act (PRICE Act)...... 64
H.R. 421, Assuring You Uniform Dietary Assistance (AYUDA) Act of
2021 (AYUDA Act)............................................... 89
H.R. 1162, 21st Century Conservation Corps Act................... 92
H.R. 1363, Sustainable Agriculture Research Act.................. 165
H.R. 1692, Rehabilitating Economic Success Through Overcoming
Rural Emergencies Act (RESTORE Act)............................ 168
H.R. 2011, Wise Investment in Children Act of 2021 (WIC Act of
2021).......................................................... 171
H.R. 2099, Secure Rural Schools Reauthorization Act of 2021...... 179
H.R. 2241, Civilian Climate Corps Act of 2021.................... 189
H.R. 2477, Urban Forests Act of 2021............................. 201
H.R. 2500, Forest Technology Enhancements for Conservation and
Habitat Improvement Act (Forest TECH Improvement Act).......... 213
H.R. 2518, Producing Responsible Energy and Conservation
Incentives and Solutions for the Environment Act (PRECISE Act). 216
H.R. 2562, Solving Our Shortages for Seedlings Act (SOS for
Seedlings Act)................................................. 224
H.R. 2581, Biochar Innovations and Opportunities for
Conservation, Health, and Advancements in Research Act of 2021
(BIOCHAR Act of 2021).......................................... 229
H.R. 2639, Trillion Trees Act.................................... 240
H.R. 2698, Aluminum Pricing Examination Act (APEX Act)........... 346
H.R. 2837, Making Essentials Available and Lawful (MEAL) Act of
2021........................................................... 349
H.R. 3100, Student Food Security Act of 2021..................... 352
H.R. 3211, Joint Chiefs Landscape Restoration Partnership Act of
2021........................................................... 387
H.R. 3369, Broadband for Rural America Act....................... 394
H.R. 5680, Saving Workers by Eliminating Economic Tampering and
Ensuring Reliability Act (SWEETER Act)......................... 407

MEMBER DAY

----------

TUESDAY, MAY 18, 2021

House of Representatives,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., via
Zoom, Hon. David Scott of Georgia [Chairman of the Committee]
presiding.
Members present: Representatives David Scott of Georgia,
Adams, Hayes, Delgado, Plaskett, O'Halleran, Lawson, Craig,
Harder, Axne, Thompson, Crawford, LaMalfa, Rouzer, Johnson,
Baird, Mann, Feenstra, Moore, Cammack, Fischbach, and Letlow.
Staff present: Lyron Blum-Evitts, Prescott Martin III, Anne
Simmons, Ashley Smith, Josh Maxwell, Patricia Straughn, Erin
Wilson, John Konya, and Dana Sandman.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID SCOTT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM GEORGIA

The Chairman. Good morning, and I want to send a big thank
you out to all our Members who have joined us for today's
Member Day hearing.
Folks, agriculture has a strong foundation in our nation's
history. Agriculture started our nation. Eighty-five percent of
our founding fathers were farmers. That is what farming means
to our great nation. Agriculture has been that foundation, and
our Committee has a proud history of working together across
party lines to advance legislation needed to ensure that we
continue to have thriving communities, but especially rural
communities.
Why do I say that? Our rural communities are the heart and
the soul of our great nation, and most certainly the heart and
soul of our agriculture industry.
As a matter of fact, agriculture represents out of our 50
states, 44 of our 50 states, largest part of their economy is
agriculture. That lets you know the significance and importance
of agriculture. And it is no secret that our farmers, our
ranchers, and our rural communities across this country are
facing serious challenges of all kinds, and we have a wonderful
roster here on our Agriculture Committee, but I recognize that
there is a wide number of other Members who are not on our
Committee that certainly want to be heard, and we want to hear
them, to share with us what their ideas are.
Folks, we have some great challenges. Climate change, rural
broadband, the concerns and issues facing our Black farmers,
our disaster aid, crop insurance, our food security, all of
these issues are here, and our agriculture is grappling with
each of these as we speak. But as I said, we have other Members
that have issues as well, and we want to address those issues
and make all of our Members, both Democrats and Republicans,
who want to help us to lead this nation in maintaining
agriculture, not just as a dynamic industry that it is, but we
want to ensure that our United States agricultural industry is
always kept as the number one agriculture industry in the
world.
So, I am looking forward to the hearing, and with that.
[The prepared statement of Mr. David Scott follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. David Scott, a Representative in Congress
from Georgia
Good morning, and thank you to all the Members who have joined us
for today's Member Day hearing. Agriculture has a strong foundation in
our nation's history, and the House Agriculture Committee has a proud
history of working together to advance legislation needed to ensure we
continue to have thriving rural communities and the resources necessary
to feed our communities. As many of you know, agriculture is the
economic engine of many of our states.
It's no secret that farmers, ranchers, and our rural communities
across the country are facing serious challenges of all kinds. We have
a wonderful roster here on the Agriculture Committee, but I recognize
that there are a wide variety of perspectives and ideas from Members
outside of our membership that can be vital to the work we do and I
want to ensure that there is always room for that here, especially as
we prepare for the next farm bill.
I'm looking forward to hearing from the Members today on the issues
impacting their constituents and their suggestions and ideas on how we
can work together to address those issues raised.
I now recognize the Ranking Member for any opening comments he'd
like to make.

The Chairman. I now recognize the Ranking Member, Mr.
Thompson, for any opening remarks he would like to make.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GLENN THOMPSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM PENNSYLVANIA

Mr. Thompson. All right. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
would like to start by thanking our fellow Committee Members
for joining us today. It is an important opportunity to hear
from you and to hear from all of our colleagues on, as the
Chairman said so well, on the very important issue of
agriculture, and all the things that are within the
jurisdiction of this Committee.
My gratitude to those who are non-Members of this Committee
but who have made agriculture a priority for joining us today.
Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss if I didn't take this time
to also reflect on the Committee's work, and in the months
ahead. The only legislation advanced through our Committee so
far during this Congress was a reconciliation instruction
reported in February, and Members on both sides of the aisle
were shut out of that process and the important timely priority
for rural America were denied consideration. But the process
and resulting policy product left much to be desired. Now, I
think we will be hearing a similar message and testimony today,
and this testimony must not only inform, but act as a guide to
the future work of this Committee. Mr. Chairman, this is an
opportunity to course correct the manner and process by which
this Committee conducts its business to reflect all the
priorities and needs of our producers and rural families, and I
am so appreciative of all the Members on both sides of the
aisle who are going to give voice to those issues today.
As a start, I would like to suggest we invite Secretary
Vilsack to testify before the Committee. We are long overdue on
our farm bill oversight implementation and implementation
duties, and we are getting closer every day to defeating a
virus that has decimated our farms, our families, and our
economy. And I am certain that the Secretary has very much to
say on both these topics. In fact, hearing views of the
Administration on so many matters is long overdue. This
Committee has barely scratched the surface of COVID-related
matters, let alone anything related to the 2018 Farm Bill. So,
I would like to ask that we invite the various agencies within
the Department, as well as the Farm Credit Administration and
the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to participate in
similar hearings. Their expertise is imperative to this
Committee's progress and success.
Mr. Chairman, your commitment to doing so would mean so
much to me, as well as our Members and the communities we
serve. And with that, I am very pleased to welcome all of our
colleagues this morning, and I look forward to their testimony.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Chairman. Well, certainly. Thank you, Ranking Member
Thompson, and you can rest assured I agree with you
wholeheartedly. We do need to bring in Farm Credit. We need to
bring in the futures industry. It is such an exciting and
dynamic time for our wonderful world of agriculture, and we
need the help of all these folks. So, you can certainly count
on me to be supportive of you in that request and your move.
Now, I would like to welcome our colleagues who have joined
us today to provide testimony on issues that are important to
the nation, but specifically to their Congressional district,
and we want to know how we can help you.
I believe we have Representative Baird here from Indiana,
Representative Hinson from Iowa, Miss Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon
from Puerto Rico, Representative Feenstra from Iowa, and
Representative Dusty Johnson from South Dakota, and I believe
Representative Westerman from Arkansas, and Representative
Malliotakis from New York. There may be others, but we are
excited to hear from you. Our staff is here taking very good
notes because we have a wonderful staff. They are the ones that
help us get the work done.
We are ready to begin, and there were even more than the
ones I mentioned who wanted to be here with us this morning,
and some are submitting their comments for the record. But each
Member that comes before us will be recognized for 5 minutes,
and now I recognize the gentleman from Indiana, Representative
Baird. You are recognized for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES R. BAIRD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM INDIANA

Mr. Baird. Thank you, Chairman Scott and Ranking Member
Thompson, and my colleagues for providing this opportunity to
speak today. I am excited to sit before so many passionate and
talented colleagues to share my vision and concerns for the
direction of our esteemed panel.
As we have seen so far in the early days of the 117th
Congress, our country faces many challenges and our policy is
being shaped by significant political forces on both sides of
the aisle. Much as my beloved Hoosier State has long been seen
as the Crossroads of America, I see plainly where our Committee
stands at the crossroads of these important policy challenges.
That said, while I see great opportunity in the potential
for agriculture and the broader whole of rural America to
effect impactful change on these challenges, I, at the present,
find myself dismayed at the direction this Committee has taken
in these early months. Many times, so far this year, I have
found myself fearing that the storied tradition of
bipartisanship that our Committee has long been known for has
been jeopardized as we hold meetings on niche, partisan issues
with partisan approaches. As we move forward with the remainder
of this year and this Congress, it is my sincere hope that we
will correct the course of our panel away from the spotlight of
mainstream partisan issues and refocus our attention on
providing much needed leadership to rural America, agricultural
producers, and the critical importance of our nation's food
systems.
The Administration, House and Senate leadership, and even
the leadership of this Committee have made clear that climate
change mitigation is among the highest priorities of this
Congress. This issue is a perfect example of a topic so easily
corruptible by partisan and political rancor, but with so much
potential for our mission if approached responsibly. As we
assuredly move forward in addressing this sensitive and timely
topic, we must focus our efforts on developing real, impactful,
and achievable solutions that encourage growth, and steer away
from some of the options that create burden and reduced
efficiency.
While there is a real risk that climate change policy could
create many challenges for the agricultural industry, if
addressed correctly, it could instead offer tremendous
opportunity with multiple beneficiaries. Our goal should be to
establish turn-key solutions, incentivize participation, and
unlock the potential for science to aid in increased
sustainability.
We need to find and provide the tools that allow producers
to work smarter, like improving rural connectivity that allows
for increases in precision agriculture which leads to increased
yields with reduced inputs like fertilizers, pesticides, water,
and fuel. We need to evaluate and retool our regulatory
pathways to allow innovative products like feed additives that
can reduce methane and other greenhouse gases created by
livestock. Adopt new technologies like soy-methyl-ester
sealants for roads and bridges that don't require replacement
and they double the life of concrete infrastructure, greatly
reducing carbon emissions while providing demand for American
soybeans. We need to give credit to farmers and ranchers for
the good work they already do to benefit our environment
through good stewardship, conservation, and the greenhouse
gases they sequester through the growing cycle. We need to
facilitate the adoption of tools like methane digesters like
those used by Fair Oaks Farms and Biotown Ag in my district to
turn animal and food waste into incredibly useful biogas that
can be used for electricity and for transportation fuels. Of
course, we need to look for more opportunities, both
domestically and abroad, to increase adoption of biofuels like
ethanol; which a Harvard study recently reported offers a 46
percent reduction in greenhouse gases over the fuel additives
they replaced, all while rebuilding our rural economies and
without decimating our fossil fuel industry.
These are just a few examples of how to turn challenge into
opportunity, but regardless of your pursuit of these or other
solutions, it is my highest priority that whatever policies we
adopt around this issue be producer-focused, accessible, and
not punitive.
Other key areas of importance for me this year include
unwavering support for the critical safety-net programs that
keep producers in business and our nation's food supply stable.
Protecting the Commodity Credit Corporation from being
commandeered by the Administration. Expanding access to foreign
markets for our agricultural goods. Protecting our nation's
biotech and scientific capabilities by stopping intellectual
property theft and forced technology transfers to gain access
to foreign markets like China. And shaping new regulatory
pathways, allowing innovative new products to come to market
and more accurately evaluating products already there.
I only have about 30 seconds, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. All right, go right ahead. We will give you
that extra.
Mr. Baird. As we move forward with our work in Congress, I
look forward to offering my passion and expertise to help bring
real solutions to the challenges facing our nation. I look
forward to working closely alongside each and every one of you
as we work to serve America's farmers and ranchers, and the
whole of rural America.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Baird follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. James R. Baird, a Representative in Congress
from Indiana
Thank you, Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Thompson, and my
colleagues for providing the opportunity to speak today. I am excited
to sit before so many passionate and talented colleagues to share my
vision and concerns for the direction of our esteemed panel.
As we've seen so far in the early days of the 117th Congress, our
country faces many great challenges and our policy is being shaped by
significant political forces on both sides of the aisle. Much as my
beloved Hoosier State has long been seen as the Crossroads of America,
I see plainly where our Committee stands as the crossroads of these
important policy challenges.
That said, while I see great opportunity in the potential for
agriculture and the broader whole of rural America to effect impactful
change on these challenges--I, at the present, find myself dismayed at
the direction this Committee has taken in these early months. Many
times, so far this year, I have found myself fearing that the storied
tradition of bipartisanship that our Committee has long been known for
has been jeopardized as we hold meeting after meeting on niche,
partisan issues with partisan approaches. As we move forward with the
remainder of this year and this Congress, it is my sincere hope that we
will correct the course of our panel away from the spotlight of
mainstream-partisan issues and refocus our attention on providing much
needed leadership for rural America, agricultural producers, and the
critical importance of our nation's food systems.
The Administration, House and Senate Leadership, and even the
leadership of this Committee have made clear that climate change
mitigation is among the highest priorities for this Congress. This
issue is the perfect example of a topic so easily corruptible by
partisanship and political rancor, but with so much potential for our
mission if approached responsibly. As we assuredly move forward in
addressing this sensitive and timely topic, we must focus our efforts
on developing real, impactful, and achievable solutions that encourage
growth, and steer away from any options that create burden or reduced
efficiency.
While there is real risk that climate change policy could create
many challenges for the agricultural industry, if addressed correctly,
it could instead offer tremendous opportunity with multiple
beneficiaries. Our goal should be to establish turn-key solutions,
incentivize participation, and unlock the potential for science to aid
in increased sustainability.
We need to find and provide the tools that allow producers to work
smarter, like improving rural connectivity that allows for increases in
precision agriculture which leads to increased yields with reduced
inputs like fertilizers, pesticides, water, and fossil fuels. We need
to evaluate and retool our regulatory pathways to allow innovate
products like feed additives that can reduce methane and other
greenhouse gasses created by livestock. Adopt new technologies like
soy-methyl-ester sealants for roads and bridges that replace harmful
petroleum products and double the life of concrete infrastructure--
greatly reducing carbon emissions while providing demand for American
soybeans. We need to give credit to farmers and ranchers for the good
work they already do to benefit our environment through good
stewardship, conservation, and the greenhouse gasses they sequester
through the growing cycle. We need to facilitate the adoption of tools
like methane digesters like that used by Fair Oaks Farms in my district
to turn animal and food waste into incredibly useful biogas that can be
used for electricity and transportation fuels. And of course, we need
to look for more opportunities both domestically and abroad to increase
adoption of biofuels like ethanol--which a Harvard study recently
reported offers a 46% reduction in greenhouse gasses over gasoline--all
while rebuilding rural economies.
These are just a few examples of how to turn challenge into
opportunity, but regardless of our pursuit of these or other solutions,
it is my highest priority that whatever policies we adopt around this
issue be producer-focused, accessible, and not punitive.
Other key areas of importance for me this year include unwavering
support of the critical safety-net programs that keep producers in
business and our nation's food supply stable. Protecting the Commodity
Credit Corporation from being commandeered by the Administration.
Expanding access to foreign markets for our agricultural goods.
Protecting our nation's biotech and scientific capabilities by stopping
intellectual property theft and forced technology transfers to gain
access to foreign markets like China. And shaping new regulatory
pathways--allowing innovative new products to come to market and more
accurately evaluating products already there.
As we move forward with our work this Congress, I look forward to
offering my passion and expertise to help bring real solutions to the
challenges facing our nation. I look forward working closely alongside
each and every one of you as we work to serve America's farmers and
ranchers, and the whole of rural America.
With that Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Thank you,

James R. Baird,
Member of Congress.

The Chairman. Certainly. Thank you, Representative Baird,
for that excellent testimony.
Next, we will hear from Mrs. Hinson from Iowa.
Mrs. Hinson. Thank you.
The Chairman. You are recognized.

STATEMENT OF HON. ASHLEY HINSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM IOWA

Mrs. Hinson. Thank you, Chairman Scott, and Ranking Member
Thompson as well for having me. Members of the Committee, it is
a pleasure to be with you today here on Member Day. I look
forward to offering my ideas to some of the challenges faced by
the agriculture sector in Iowa. I know we are well-represented
on the Committee, but I know there are so many issues facing
our rural communities and I just wanted to add my voice to
those issues today.
Last month, I introduced H.R. 2518, the PRECISE Act, which
is legislation that would make it easier for our farmers to
access precision agriculture technology by allowing existing
farm bill USDA programs like EQIP and CSP to cover precision ag
tech.
The legislation presents a farmer-focused solution to the
very real challenges we face, and I hope it will continue to
gain additional bipartisan support.
I have heard from Iowans across the ag industry about how
precision ag technology is key to increasing crop yields, while
simultaneously lowering our overall inputs, front-end costs to
our farmers, and also positive environmental impacts. However,
it is also extremely expensive to start using this precision ag
technology, making it out of reach for many of our family
farmers in Iowa.
The PRECISE Act would expand access to this technology,
including tools to connect rural broadband for producers using
these innovative strategies. Mr. Chairman, I did appreciate
your remarks about rural broadband as well. We should harness
the knowledge and experience within the agriculture community
to provide innovative solutions and be good stewards to our
environment, and we can do that.
Farmers don't just deserve to be at the table because these
policies impact them, they deserve to be at the table because
they have the valuable ideas and solutions that bureaucrats who
have never set foot on a farm could ever imagine.
So, I hope we can work together to advance priorities like
the PRECISE Act that encourage our farmers, our producers, and
our ranchers to truly innovate in what they do. Farmers in the
Heartland have solutions to more problems than just feeding the
world. They help fuel it, also through biofuel production.
Biofuels are on hand and available right now to have a dramatic
and positive impact on the nation's fuel supply, improving our
energy security and minimizing environmental outputs at the
same time. As we have seen over the last few weeks, our fuel
supply is volatile and can be subject to national security
threats. So, simple question. Why not turn to our own Iowa
producers right now? They have the solution.
It is critical that this Committee hold the EPA accountable
to maintain the integrity of the Renewable Fuel Standard to
maximize the benefit of biofuels.
And, before I close today with my remarks, I just wanted to
talk a little bit more about the lack of access and
connectivity that many rural Iowans and Americans face each and
every day. Rural Iowans deserve equitable access to essential
services like broadband and healthcare, as well as rural
community development and economic opportunity. Rural
communities cannot continue to be left behind. Their voices
matter. Their stories are important. We need to tell them here
in Washington. And, I look forward to working with all of you
to ensure that they are heard as we continue to legislate here
in Congress.
Finally, I urge this Committee to take up the PRECISE Act
along with other legislation that will continue to support
Iowa's farmers, ranchers, and biofuels producers, and I stand
ready to work with this Committee, my colleagues from Iowa, to
support our agriculture sector back home.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the time today, and I yield
back.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Hinson follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Ashley Hinson, a Representative in Congress
from Iowa
Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Thompson, Members of the Committee,

Thank you for the opportunity to attend Member Day and offer ideas
and solutions for challenges faced by the agriculture sector in Iowa,
as well as issues facing our rural communities.
Last month, I introduced the PRECISE Act, legislation that would
make it easier for farmers to access precision agriculture technology
by allowing existing USDA Federal programs under the farm bill to
support and encourage these practices.
This legislation is part of an effort led by Leader McCarthy and
House Agriculture Committee Ranking Member Thompson to promote
responsible energy solutions that prioritize input from the agriculture
sector. It's a farmer-focused solution to very real challenges, and I
hope that it will gain bipartisan support.
I have heard from Iowans across the ag industry about how precision
agriculture technology is key to increasing crop yields, while
simultaneously lowering overall inputs, front-end costs to farmers, and
environmental impacts.
However, it is also extremely expensive to start using this
technology, making it out of reach for many family farmers.
The PRECISE Act would expand access to this technology, including
tools to connect rural broadband for producers using these innovative
practices.
Farmers, producers, and ranchers in Iowa care deeply about
conservation. They are the best stewards of their own land. Our
environmental policies should reflect that core belief.
We should harness the knowledge and experience within the
agriculture community to provide innovative solutions to the climate
challenge. Farmers don't just deserve to be at the table because these
policies impact them--they should be central to the discussion because
they have valuable ideas and solutions that bureaucrats who have never
set foot on a farm could never imagine.
I hope we can work together to advance policies like the PRECISE
Act that will create a healthy economy and a healthy environment.
Farmers in the Heartland have solutions to more problems than just
feeding the world--they help fuel it, too. Our corn and soybean
producers can assist with one of the hottest issues the Administration
is trying to address: climate change. Biofuels are a low-carbon, low-
octane solution that are readily available to meet an increased demand.
As we've seen over the last few weeks, our fuel supply is volatile and
can be subject to national security threats. Why not turn to our own
Iowa producers, who are more than capable of bolstering our nation's
fuel supply and reducing our nation's carbon footprint?
The ag industry is constantly working at a disadvantage because its
been overlooked far too often. The lack of access that rural
communities have to basic necessities is atrocious and extremely
unfair. This is the backbone of our nation. Increased access to rural
broadband would significantly improve the productivity and efficiency
of the agriculture industry, including its ability to turn to
modernized farming and conservation practices such as precision
agriculture technology. Iowans in rural areas should not be expected to
drive miles to find a gas station or a library in a nearby town just to
connect to the internet. It's time we provide rural America the
attention it deserves and connect it with the rest of the country and
the world.
Rural Iowans also need access to other essential services,
including rural community development and economic opportunity. Rural
communities cannot continue to be left behind--their voices matter,
their stories are important, and I look forward to working with you all
to ensure that they are heard as we legislate here in Congress.
I urge this Committee to take up the PRECISE Act, along with other
legislation that will support Iowa's farmers, ranchers, and biofuel
producers, and I stand ready to work with this Committee to support our
agriculture sector. I yield back.
Submitted Legislation
1. H.R. 2518, Producing Responsible Energy and Conservation
Incentives and Solutions for the Environment Act (PRECISE
Act): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-
117hr2518ih/pdf/BILLS-117hr2518
ih.pdf. (See p. 216).

The Chairman. I just want to say, Representative Hinson,
that you are absolutely right, and this Committee is with you
100 percent on the precision agriculture and our needs and at
the forefront, we are going to get broadband established. It is
so critical, and I just wanted to give a powerful amen to that.
Our staff is working on legislation to move us immediately. We
had a great hearing on it. Excellent presentation,
Representative Hinson.
And now, we will hear from Congresswoman Jenniffer
Gonzalez-Colon.

STATEMENT OF HON. JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON, A RESIDENT
COMMISSIONER IN CONGRESS FROM PUERTO RICO

Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman,
for allowing me to participate in this Member Day. Thank you,
Ranking Member Thompson, for the opportunity.
As you know, Puerto Rico does not participate in the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, like their
counterparts in the states, D.C., Guam and the U.S. Virgin
Islands. Instead, it has the Nutrition Assistance Program, or
NAP, which is a capped block grant typically funded at over
$1.9 billion every year and is currently serving over 1.5
million Island residents.
NAP is one of the top assistance programs for the needy
constituents of the Island. Similar to SNAP, NAP provides a
monthly allotment meant to support a healthy and balanced diet.
However, due to limited funding, NAP cannot automatically
adjust to fluctuations in demand, including those related to
emergencies, and provides less benefits to eligible
participants.
I can tell you that because after Hurricane Maria in 2017,
the demand for NAP participation increased significantly. We
noticed a similar pattern with the earthquakes that began in
late 2018, and now with the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. It has
become clear that NAP is one of the first programs my
constituents turn to during the aftermath of an emergency or a
crisis. Still, the program cannot automatically accommodate
sudden increases in demand and, as a result, we have to turn to
Congress on multiple occasions to secure emergency NAP funds.
Additionally, the base block grant leaves my constituents
with less benefits each month. For example, a household of one
enrolled in NAP receives a maximum of $112, compared to a
maximum monthly allotment of $234 in SNAP. Similarly, a
household of two in NAP receives $216, compared to a maximum
monthly allotment of $430 under SNAP.
While I appreciate the support of my colleagues with
ensuring Puerto Rico has enough NAP funds to cover benefits
during emergency periods, true relief and proper assistance can
only be achieved with a transition to SNAP. This is my goal,
and my office is working closely with the Government of Puerto
Rico and USDA to understand the implications of this transition
and devise an appropriate plan for Puerto Rico to successfully
operate SNAP. As such, I respectfully request you continue
working alongside my office as we develop a path towards a
viable transition to SNAP.
Last, I would like to convey my full support for the
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and
Children, or WIC, which supports nearly 100,000 constituents in
Puerto Rico. I am an original cosponsor of H.R. 2011, known as
the WIC Act of 2021, which would expand eligibility and address
specific gaps in nutritional assistance for postpartum women
and young children.
Thank you and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Miss Gonzalez-Colon follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, a Resident
Commissioner in Congress from Puerto Rico
Thank you, Chairman Scott and [Ranking Member] Thompson for the
opportunity to participate in today' Member Day Hearing.
As you know, Puerto Rico does not participate in the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) like their counterparts in the
states, D.C., Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Instead, it has the
Nutrition Assistance Program, or NAP, which is a capped block grant
typically funded at over $1.9 billion every year and is currently
serving over 1.5 million Island residents.
NAP is one of the top assistance programs for needy constituents on
the Island. Similar to SNAP, NAP provides a monthly allotment meant to
support a healthy and balanced diet. However, due to limited funding,
NAP cannot automatically adjust to fluctuations in demand--including
those related to emergencies--and provides less benefits to eligible
participants.
After Hurricane Maria in 2017, demand for NAP participation
increased significantly. We noticed a similar pattern with the
earthquakes that began in late 2018, and now with the ongoing COVID-19
pandemic. It has become clear that NAP is one of the first programs my
constituents turn to during the aftermath of an emergency or crisis.
Still, the program cannot automatically accommodate sudden increases in
demand and, as a result, we have had to turn to Congress on multiple
occasions to secure emergency NAP funds.
Additonally, the base block grant leaves my constituents with less
benefits each month. For example, a household of one enrolled in NAP
receives a maximum of $112, compared to a maximum monthly allotment of
$234 in SNAP. Similarly, a household of two in NAP receives $216,
compared to a maximum monthly allotment of $430 under SNAP.
While I appreciate the support of my colleagues with ensuring
Puerto Rico has enough NAP funds to cover benefits during emergency
periods, true relief and proper assistance can only be achieved with a
transition to SNAP. This is my goal, and my office is working closely
with the Government of Puerto Rico and USDA to understand the
implications of this transition and devise an appropriate plan for
Puerto Rico to successfully operate SNAP. As such, I respectfully
request you continue working alongside my office as we develop a path
towards a viable transition to SNAP.
Last, I would like to convey my full support for the Special
Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, or
WIC, which supports nearly 100,000 constituents in Puerto Rico. I am an
original cosponsor of H.R. 2011, known as the WIC Act, which would
expand eligibility and address specific gaps in nutrition assistance
for postpartum women and young children.
Thank you and I [yield] back.
Submitted Legislation
1. H.R. 2011, Wise Investment in Children Act of 2021 (WIC Act of
2021): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-
117hr2011ih/pdf/BILLS-117hr
2011ih.pdf (See p. 171).

The Chairman. Thank you very much for your excellent
testimony, and we hear your concerns about NAP and the fact
that sometimes that money runs out. We are going to be working
with you on that. Excellent testimony there, Miss Gonzalez-
Colon.
And now, we will hear from Representative Feenstra from
Iowa.

STATEMENT OF HON. RANDY FEENSTRA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM IOWA

Mr. Feenstra. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Thompson. Thank you for providing the opportunity for me to
testify today.
I want to call the Committee's attention to the current
market conditions facing cattle producers in Iowa and across
the United States.
Since August of 2019, there have been multiple extreme
market disruptions to the cattle industry. The cattle
processing facility fire in Holcomb, Kansas and supply chain
disruptions caused by COVID-19 have had serious impacts on the
cattle market to the detriment of many of our cattle producers.
As a result, we saw boxed beef prices dramatically increase
while live cattle prices have decreased over the last year. In
some cases, cattle producers were left without a market to sell
their cattle and were responsible for higher costs to feed and
care for the cattle until a market could be found.
Over the past several weeks, we have again seen the price
of boxed beef continue to increase while cattle prices remain
stagnant. The gross packer margin on cattle has grown, but I
continue to hear the cattle producers are struggling to even
break even, to a point of losing approximately $100 to $120 a
head for every one sold.
There are a lot of factors contributing to the current
market situation. We know that the four meatpacking companies
control over 80 percent of the cattle processing industry. This
simple fact leaves the cattle industry particularly vulnerable
to market disruptions. It also can leave cattle producers with
few options to market their cattle if a packing facility has to
reduce their processing capacity, which we saw with COVID and
now we hear a lot of packers saying they don't have workers,
which is causing a slowdown.
In Iowa, I have heard from the producers concerned about
the packers having a captive supply. Packers have purchased all
the cattle they need through formula contracts, whose details
are not known to the public, and then those packers are not
active in the market for a week. As a result, some cattle
producers are left without a place to sell their cattle, and
must continue to cover the cost of feeding and caring for them,
as the commodity prices continue to soar.
This issue highlights a growing discussion if there is
enough cash negotiation taking place in the marketplace to
ensure true price discovery and to allow cattle producers
sufficient leverage in the cash negotiations. There are several
legislative proposals that are being discussed about how to
tackle this issue and I believe it is a discussion that must
take place prior to reauthorization of Livestock Mandatory
Reporting.
We have also heard that labor shortages of COVID-19
precautions have impacted processors' ability to operate at
full capacity. Again, this is a very serious problem as the
cattle continue to back up. We should also take time to examine
how we can assist small- and medium-sized processors to create
additional markets.
These are just a few of the issues that I am hearing
contributing to the current situation facing our cattle
producers. While there are several intertwined issues taking
place, I believe it is our responsibility on this Committee to
examine what is going on and put forth solutions that will help
remedy the state of the market to ensure family cattle
producers can make a living through their hard work. The time
to act is now and I hope Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Thompson, that you will commit to working with me toward a
hearing on examining the state of the market and putting forth
solutions in the near future.
I cannot tell you how crucial this is. We have current
independent cattle producers that will probably not be in
business in the next 6 months if we do not get this rectified.
It seems that there is a captive market through the packers,
and if you are not part of the packers, you are out in the
cold. These are things that need to be looked at. Thank you,
Ranking Member and Mr. Chairman, for considering these options.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Feenstra follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Randy Feenstra a Representative in Congress
from Iowa
Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Thompson:

Thank you for providing the opportunity to testify today. I want to
call the Committee's attention to the current market conditions facing
cattle producers in Iowa and across the United States.
Since August of 2019, there have been multiple extreme market
disruptions to the cattle industry. A cattle processing facility fire
in Holcomb, Kansas and supply chain disruptions caused by COVID-19 had
serious impacts on the cattle producers. As a result, we saw boxed beef
prices increase while live cattle prices decreased. In some cases,
cattle producers were left without a market to sell their cattle and
were responsible for higher costs to feed and care for the cattle until
a market could be found.
While these black-swan events had negative impacts on cattle
producers, the current market situation remains of serious concern to
cattle producers. As of May 10, 2021 the choice boxed beef cutout was
valued at more than $309/cwt. At the same time, cattle producers
received average bids of approximately $118/cwt. Further the gross
packer margin, on an average steer weighing approximately 1,450 lbs.,
with a 63 percent dressing percentage, exceeds $1,000/head. This comes
as I continue to hear from cattle producers struggling to break-even.
There are a lot of factors contributing to the current market
situation. We know that four meatpacking companies control over 80
percent of the cattle processing industry. This simple fact does leave
the cattle industry particularly vulnerable to market disruptions. It
also can leave cattle producers with few options if a packing facility
has to reduce their processing capacity. In Iowa, I have heard from
producers concerned about packers having a captive supply. Packers have
purchased all the cattle they need through formula contracts, whose
details are not known to the public, and are not active in the market
for a week. As a result, some cattle producers are left without a place
to sell their cattle, and must continue to cover the cost of care, feed
and yardage--all at a time when we see crop commodity prices soaring.
This issue highlights a growing discussion about if there is enough
cash negotiation taking place in the marketplace to ensure true price
discovery and to allow cattle producers sufficient leverage in the cash
negotiations. There are several legislative proposals that being
discussed about how to tackle this issue and I believe it is a
discussion that must take place prior to the reauthorization of
Livestock Mandatory Reporting.
We have also heard that labor shortages and COVID-19 precautions
have impacted processor's ability to operate at full capacity. This is
a serious concern and should be examined to ensure that our cattle
producers have markets to sell their cattle. We should also take time
to examine how we can assist small- and medium-sized processors to
create additional markets.
These are just a few of the issues that I am hearing contributing
to the current situation facing our cattle producers. While there are
several, intertwined issues taking place, I believe it is the
responsibly of this Committee to examine what is going on and to put
forth solutions that will help remedy the state of the market to ensure
the family cattle producer can make a living from their hard work. The
time to act is now and I hope Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Thompson,
that you will commit to working with me towards a hearing to examine
the state of the market and putting forth solutions in the near future.

The Chairman. Well, thank you, Representative Feenstra, and
you have raised some very important issues that are of concern
to me as well. Quite honestly, I have talked with several in
the cattle industry about getting help to the small- and
medium-sized producers, but it is very interesting that you
pointed out that some of our cattle producers are now losing up
to $120 per head. That is something that we look forward to
helping and making sure our cattle industry is thriving. All
right. Thank you very much.
Now, we will go to Mr. Dusty Johnson of Iowa. Mr. Johnson?

STATEMENT OF HON. DUSTY JOHNSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM SOUTH DAKOTA

Mr. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Ranking
Member.
As we talk about the priorities we want this Committee to
deal with in this Congress, I do appreciate the opportunity to
be heard.
I am going to talk about two things today: the reopening of
FSA offices, and the cattle markets. Now, many of my colleagues
have heard me talk about these things before, but they are
really critically important.
Now, the pandemic has put a ton of strain on these local
FSA offices. It is not just the typical programs of the ARCs
and the PLCs and the CRPs, but we have obviously a disaster
program, CFAP, which was new to producers, new to FSA offices,
put just an unprecedented amount of work onto those offices,
and the offices have been closed.
Now, almost a year ago, the Trump Administration laid out a
data-driven reopening process that would use COVID metrics from
that localized area to decide when offices could reopen. So, we
had a pathway to reopening. Many of these offices were moving
in the right direction, and then we had the new Administration
reverse that, closing all of these offices, telling them that
they could no longer take appointments. And given the workload
that is out there, we have to get these offices opened back up.
This Committee has a constitutional duty to do oversight. This
is the kind of meat and potatoes, blocking and tackling
oversight that we should be conducting. We haven't had a
hearing yet with Administration officials to talk about
operational issues related to producers, and we really should.
So, that is number one.
Number two, I want to talk about the cattle markets. You
know, most commodities have really rebounded pretty
substantially since the earliest days of the pandemic, but
cattle producers have been left behind in that rally.
Now, for a lot of the commodities, it is substantial
increase in export demand, in some cases really incredible
increase in export demand that has driven that. But again, the
cattle guys have been left behind, and there is a tremendous
amount of concern, uncertainty, and pain out in cattle country.
I just want to make sure that we understand this has got to be
something we address at the Committee level.
Now, there are a few reasons for this. Number one, we do
have serious labor shortages. That is a national problem across
all industries, but when you don't have the workers able to
show up at these packing plants, it substantially reduces the
capacity. That has huge ripple impacts.
Now, there are also some structural deficiencies,
especially a lack of processing capacity. Even during the best
of times, we don't have enough shackle space. And right now,
what compounds this problem, and which has a factor that has so
many people in cattle country nervous, is we have a developing
drought which is at really the worst time going to send a
message to the market to draw down herd size, and it is going
to cut into the growing season for grass, and that is going to
be a real problem.
So, the USDA did an analysis. They did an investigation.
They released--I guess you would call it an interim report that
analyzed the growing gap between boxed beef prices and what
producers were getting on the hoof. And I thought it had some
valuable insight. It showed that because of the pandemic, we
had a 40 percent reduction in the processing capacity at the
plants. And that that choke point created very negative impacts
on both ends, to both consumers and producers. Producers, your
cow/calf folks, were getting--or your feeders were getting 18
percent less than they were before on already lousy prices, and
then you had consumers who were paying, in some cases, 80
percent more for boxed beef. That choke point, that structural
deficiency, is a serious problem.
So, what do we do about it? Well, I introduced H.R. 8489,
the PRICE Act (Price Reform In Cattle Economics Act), which has
a number of things related to transparency, new risk management
tools, the ability for small producers--not producers, sorry--
processors to grow their market share, which would help. This
Committee deserves some praise in working some of those ideas
already through this Committee this year. We have leveled the
playing field for small processors as they work to increase
overtime inspection. I think that was a great success, but we
need to build on that.
I want to call out the fact that a recent meeting organized
by the Livestock Marketing Association brought together leaders
from American Farm Bureau, American Farmers Union, National
Cattlemen's Beef Association, R-CALF USA, and the U.S.
Cattlemen. Now, these guys did something extraordinary. They
agreed on three prongs that they could work together on. I am
supportive of all those prongs, and I want to share them with
my colleagues here.
Number one, let's reauthorize Livestock Mandatory
Reporting, and let's do that in a way that includes formula-
based prices under the same reporting requirements, and also,
let's get a contract library established. Number two, let's
have the DOJ deliver a final report on all these market
disruptions. And number three, let's encourage the investment
of and the development of new, independent local and regional
packers. My PRICE Act deals with issues one and three, and then
earlier this week, we released a letter that deals with issue
two.
I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member. This is
an incredibly important issue that I am looking forward to
addressing with the Committee.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Dusty Johnson, a Representative in Congress
from South Dakota
Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Thompson, thank you for holding
this Member Day hearing to highlight priorities important to our
constituents back home. As a Member of this Committee I often get the
opportunity to address policy concerns at a national level, but today I
would like to highlight some issues that are especially impacting
citizens in South Dakota.
Farm Service Agency (FSA) Offices
The pandemic has put enormous strain on our local FSA offices.
Between disaster programs such as the Coronavirus Food Assistance
Program (CFAP), signup for standing programs like the Agriculture Risk
Coverage and Price Loss Coverage (ARC/PLC[)], and the Conservation
Reserve Program (CRP), there is an unprecedented amount of work that
needs to be done.
In May 2020 the Trump Administration detailed a pandemic reopening
plan for FSA offices that was based on science and dictated the ability
of offices to reopen depending on conditions in their respective
counties.
While more restrictive than some may have liked, this was at least
dependent on a metric that made some sort of sense.
This is why it is so confusing to me that after many county offices
were on a path to reopen in areas where the pandemic was under control,
Secretary Vilsack dictated that all offices should shut back down and
quit taking appointments.
Mr. Chairman, this is just one of the numerous issues that this
Committee has a responsibility to conduct thorough oversight. However
to date we have not had a single hearing with Administration officials
to discuss important issues like these. I hope that changes soon and
the Agriculture Committee gets back to focusing on issues that matter
to farmers, ranchers, and rural America.
Cattle Markets
While many commodities have rebounded since the beginning of the
pandemic, driven by increased export demand, cattlemen in South Dakota
have been left out as processing capacity and labor to run at full
force remain an issue.
Compounding these struggles are a developing drought that will
likely cut into growing season and push cow herd liquidations.
These black swan events have taken their toll on ranchers and
feeders. USDA's Boxed Beef & Fed Cattle Price Spread Investigation
Report * from last summer showed that in the aftermath of the pandemic
fed cattle prices declined 18% and beef processing capacity utilization
by roughly 40%. At the same time, boxed beef prices rose almost 80%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Editor's note: the report is located on p. 409.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's why I urge this Committee to continue to examine these
important issues and not leave cattlemen behind in discussions. That's
why last Congress I introduced H.R. 8489, the PRICE Act that would
focus on greater transparency, increased risk management solutions, and
open up opportunities for new and expanding meat processors.
Last Congress, this Committee was successful in passing several
things that moved us forward, including my bill to provide a level
playing field for small processors seeking overtime inspection.
I look forward to working with the Committee and this Congress to
address these important issues to South Dakota.
Submitted Legislation
1. H.R. 8489, Price Reform In Cattle Economics Act (PRICE Act):
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-116hr8489ih/pdf/
BILLS-116hr8489
ih.pdf (See p. 64).

The Chairman. Well, thank you for that, Representative
Johnson, and let me apologize to you. I have recognized you as
being from Iowa, when in fact, you represent the wonderful
people of South Dakota. I am sorry about that.
Mr. Johnson. They get a lot better corn yields in Iowa, so
if we could get that, that would be just fine.
The Chairman. All right. There you go. Thank you. An
excellent presentation, and we look forward to working with you
to address those concerns.
Now, we will hear from Representative Westerman from
Arkansas.

STATEMENT OF HON. BRUCE WESTERMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM ARKANSAS

Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Chairman Scott, and Ranking
Member Thompson for the opportunity to testify today. As
Ranking Member of the House Natural Resources Committee, I
enjoy working closely with both of you on our mutual goals of
conserving the environment and ensuring the prosperity of rural
America.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, our nation is blessed with an
abundance of natural resources. We have the responsibility to
manage and utilize these resources in ways that allow them to
flourish for future generations, and I firmly believe that the
healthiest, most resilient environment and economy are ones
that scientifically balance both the needs of the land with the
needs of the people living connected to the land.
True conservation utilizes innovative new approaches to
maximize utility and access to our lands, while ensuring their
long-term health. One piece of bipartisan legislation that
exemplifies these principles of conservation and innovation is
H.R. 2639, the Trillion Trees Act. It is a bill that I re-
introduced this past April. The bill is endorsed by over 50
stakeholder organizations and has currently 96 bipartisan
cosponsors. My bill would improve our nation's forestlands and
establish the U.S. as a leader in the global One Trillion Trees
Initiative by incentivizing improved regeneration, management,
and utilization of our forests.
Studies show planting and restoring one trillion trees
globally would sequester 205 gigatons of carbon. That is an
amount equivalent to \2/3\ of the carbon released since the
beginning of the Industrial Revolution. We currently have over
400 parts per million of carbon in the atmosphere, and the
American people are demanding that Congress take practical
action to address this issue. Natural climate solutions like
the Trillion Trees Act are key to our future as we seek
commonsense, innovative ways to address atmospheric carbon.
House Natural Resources Republicans held a forum on the
bill in celebration of Arbor Day, where representatives from
Walmart, the National Wildlife Federation, the National
Alliance of Forest Owners, and University of Idaho testified in
strong support of the bill. During this forum, witnesses
highlighted both the economic and carbon-storing benefits of
sustainable forest products and global reforestation
initiatives. As this Committee works to identify practical,
pro-growth carbon solutions, I hope that the House Agriculture
Committee will hold an official hearing on the Trillion Trees
Act.
Additionally, I would like to highlight several bills which
were included in the Trillion Trees Act, but were also
introduced as standalone pieces of legislation referred to this
Committee.
The first is H.R. 2477, the Urban Forests Act of 2021, a
bipartisan bill introduced by Representative Malliotakis from
New York. Urban forests are important sources of carbon
sequestration and sequestered nearly 130 million tons of carbon
in 2018. The Urban Forests Act of 2021 would enhance and
maintain these forests while helping create new jobs focused on
new wood products and forest management.
Next, H.R. 2500, the Forest TECH Improvement Act,
introduced by Representative Moore of Utah, aims to improve the
pace and scale of reforestation efforts via new technologies
like drones and advanced GIS mapping technologies.
Third, H.R. 2562, the SOS for Seedlings Act, introduced by
Representative Bentz, addresses the significant U.S. seedling
shortage by providing critical direction to the U.S. Forest
Service to develop a comprehensive seedling strategy and
increasing resources for Federal, state, Tribal, local, and
private nurseries. If the United States is to both become a
global leader in reforestation and address the reforestation
needs driven by catastrophic wildfire, we must dramatically
scale up our current U.S. nursery capacity.
Last, but not least, is H.R. 2581, the BIOCHAR Act,
introduced by Representative Herrell. Biochar is an emerging
carbon sequestration tool with exciting potential to sequester
carbon from biomass for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.
Biochar, which is produced by heating biomass in the absence of
oxygen, also has a litany of other environmental benefits
ranging from improved forest health and resiliency,
agricultural productivity, environmental remediation, water
quality improvement and retention, and improved soil health.
This bill would create a new demonstration projects for biochar
to improve its commercialization as well as new applied
research and development programs to test its applicability in
a variety of sectors.
To quote something Ranking Member Thompson frequently says,
``The 2018 Farm Bill was the greenest farm bill in history.'' I
believe that if we don't pass these bills as stand-alone
beforehand, the inclusion of the Trillion Trees Act and the
additional bills I mentioned can help make the 2023 Farm Bill
even greener and provide a benefit to both the environment and
the economy.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today.
Again, as Ranking Member of the Natural Resources Committee, I
am committed to working with you to advance meaningful,
bipartisan conservation and forestry legislation that will
improve the lives of Americans across the nation. Thank you,
and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Westerman follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Bruce Westerman, a Representative in
Congress from Arkansas
Thank you, Chairman Scott, and Ranking Member Thompson for the
opportunity to testify today. As Ranking Member of the House Committee
on Natural Resources, I enjoy working closely with you both on our
mutual goals of conserving the environment and ensuring the prosperity
of rural America.
Mr. Chairman, our nation is blessed with an abundance of natural
resources. We have the responsibility to manage and utilize these
resources in ways that allow them to flourish for future generations. I
firmly believe that the healthiest, most resilient environment is one
which scientifically balances both the needs of the land with the needs
of the people living connected to the land. True conservation utilizes
innovative new approaches to maximize utility and access to our lands,
while ensuring their long-term health.
One piece of bipartisan legislation that exemplifies these
principles of conservation and innovation is H.R. 2639, the ``Trillion
Trees Act,'' which I re-introduced this past April. The bill is
endorsed by over 50 stakeholder organizations and currently has 96
bipartisan cosponsors. My bill would improve our nation's forestlands
and establish the U.S. as a leader of the global One Trillion Trees
Initiative by incentivizing improved regeneration, management, and
utilization of our forests.
Studies show planting and restoring one trillion trees globally
would sequester 205 gigatons of carbon, an amount equivalent to \2/3\
of all the carbon remaining in the atmosphere. We currently have over
400 parts per million of carbon in the atmosphere, and the American
people are demanding that Congress take practical action to address
this issue. Natural climate solutions like the Trillion Trees Act must
be our future as we seek commonsense, innovative ways to address
atmospheric carbon.
House Natural Resources Republicans held [a] forum on the bill in
celebration of Arbor Day, where representatives from Walmart, the
National Wildlife Federation, the National Alliance of Forest Owners,
and University of Idaho testified in strong support of the bill. During
this Forum, witnesses highlighted the both the economic and carbon-
storing benefits of sustainable forest products and global
reforestation initiatives. As this Committee works to identify
practical, pro-growth carbon solutions, I hope that the House
Agriculture Committee will hold an official hearing on the ''Trillion
Trees Act.''
Additionally, I would like to highlight several bills which were
included in the ``Trillion Trees Act,'' but were also introduced as
standalone pieces of legislation referred to this Committee:
The first is H.R. 2477, the ``Urban Forests Act of 2021,'' a
bipartisan bill introduced by Representative Malliotakis. Urban forests
are important sources of carbon sequestration and sequestered nearly
130 million metric tons of carbon in 2018. The Urban Forests Act of
2021 would enhance and maintain these forests while helping create new
jobs focused on new wood products and forest management.
Next, H.R. 2500, the ``Forest TECH Improvement Act,'' introduced by
Representative Moore of Utah, aims to improve the pace and scale of
reforestation efforts via new technologies like drones and advanced GIS
mapping technologies.
Third, H.R. 25[62], the ``SOS for Seedlings Act,'' introduced by
Representative Bentz, addresses the significant U.S. seedling shortage
by providing critical direction to the U.S. Forest Service to develop a
comprehensive seedling strategy and increasing resources for Federal,
state, Tribal, local and private nurseries. If the United States is to
both become a global leader in reforestation and address the
reforestation needs driven by catastrophic wildfire, we must
dramatically scale up our current U.S. nursery capacity.
Last, but not least, is H.R. 2581, the ``BIOCHAR Act,'' introduced
by Representative Herrell. Biochar is an emerging carbon sequestration
tool with exciting potential to sequester carbon for hundreds of years.
Biochar, which is produced by burning biomass in the absence of oxygen,
also has a litany of other environmental benefits ranging from improved
forest health arid resiliency, agricultural productivity, environmental
remediation, water quality improvement and retention, and improved soil
health. This bill would create a new demonstration projects for biochar
to improve its commercialization as well as new applied research and
development programs to test its applicability in a variety of sectors.
To quote something Ranking Member Thompson frequently says, ``The
2018 Farm Bill was the greenest farm bill in history.'' I believe that
the inclusion of the Trillion Trees Act and the additional bills I
mentioned can help make the 2023 Farm Bill even greener and provide a
benefit to both the environment and the economy.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today. As Ranking
Member of the Natural Resources Committee, I am committed to working
with you all to advance meaningful, bipartisan conservation and
forestry legislation that will improve the lives of Americans across
the nation. Thank you, and I yield back.
Submitted Legislation
1. H.R. 2639, Trillion Trees Act: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/
pkg/BILLS-117hr2639ih/pdf/BILLS-117hr2639ih.pdf (See p.
240).

2. H.R. 2477, Urban Forests Act of 2021: https://www.govinfo.gov/
content/pkg/BILLS-117hr2477ih/pdf/BILLS-117hr2477ih.pdf
(See p. 201).

3. H.R. 2500, Forest Technology Enhancements for Conservation and
Habitat Improvement Act (Forest TECH Improvement Act):
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-117hr2500ih/pdf/
BILLS-117hr2500
ih.pdf (See p. 213).

4. H.R. 2562, Solving Our Shortages for Seedlings Act (SOS for
Seedlings Act): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-
117hr2562ih/pdf/BILLS-117hr2562ih.pdf (See p. 224).

5. H.R. 2581, Biochar Innovations and Opportunities for
Conservation, Health, and Advancements in Research Act of
2021 (BIOCHAR Act of 2021): https://www.govinfo.gov/
content/pkg/BILLS-117hr2581ih/pdf/BILLS-117hr2581ih.pdf
(See p. 229).

The Chairman. Yes. Well, thank you very much,
Representative Westerman, and your comments are quite timely.
As you know, dealing with climate change is one of this
Committee's foremost issues, and the foresters play a very
important role in that. Many people may not know that Georgia
is the number one state for privately owned forestlands, and so
I am very much aware of the vital role that our forestry
friends have played over the years, but none more than right
now as we are grappling with carbon sequestration and dealing
with how we make sure that we are able to deal adequately with
agriculture at the forefront of this nation's policies dealing
with climate change.
Next, we will hear from Ms. Malliotakis--I hope I got that
right--from New York.

STATEMENT OF HON. NICOLE MALLIOTAKIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM NEW YORK

Ms. Malliotakis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you,
Ranking Member Thompson, and also thank you to Congressman
Westerman who really set up my opportunity to speak perfectly
by also plugging my bill, the Urban Forest Act.
I would like to take this opportunity to come before you
today and present my testimony regarding a bipartisan piece of
legislation that I introduced, H.R. 2477, the Urban Forests
Act. Urban forests are important sources of carbon
sequestration, as was just mentioned by you, Mr. Chairman, and
have already sequestered nearly 130 million metric tons of
carbon in 2018.
In addition to carbon sequestration, urban forests also
provide numerous other benefits to communities including job
creation, reduction in air pollution and stormwater runoff,
mitigation of the heat island effect, and reductions in home
energy costs for consumers. This multitude of benefits means
that for every $1 invested in urban forestry, it can provide $2
to $4 in return.
So, how can we take advantage of these benefits? Well, my
bill creates a competitive matching grant program based on the
Arbor Day Foundation's Tree City USA Program to enhance and
maintain urban forests, particularly for communities with low
tree and environmental equity; supports local job creation
through Job Corps by establishing Civilian Conservation Centers
in urban areas to teach important technical skills related to
urban forestry. It creates a new pilot project that
incentivizes innovative products made from urban wood sources.
It adds carbon sequestration as a goal of the Forest Service's
Urban and Community Forestry Program and to the Ten-Year Urban
Forestry Action Plan. This bill also reauthorizes the National
Urban and Community Forestry Advisory Council, increases the
authorization of appropriations for the Urban and Community
Forestry Program to $50 million for 5 years. It also improves
data collected on urban forests through the Forest Inventory
and Analysis Program, and coordinates existing urban forestry
programs and research areas between different departments and
agencies.
At a time when we are really seeking to work in a
bipartisan fashion on this issue of climate change, this is one
particular bill which I am very proud to have the cosponsors
from east to west of our country, from Alaska to Hawaii. It is
cosponsored by Reps. Sanford Bishop of Georgia, Bruce Westerman
of Arkansas, Don Young of Alaska, Kurt Schrader of Oregon, Joe
Morelle of New York, and Ed Case of Hawaii. We have four
Democrats and two Republicans currently cosponsoring this bill
with me, and I welcome all the Members on the Committee to
please add their names. I would really strongly urge and
appreciate if you could help, Mr. Chairman, to move this
through the Committee process.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Malliotakis follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Nicole Malliotakis, a Representative in
Congress from New York
Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Thompson:

I would like to thank you for the opportunity to come before you
today and present my testimony regarding a bipartisan piece of
legislation I introduced--H.R. 2477 the Urban Forests Act. Urban
forests are important sources of carbon sequestration and have already
sequestered nearly 130 million metric tons of carbon in 2018. In
addition to carbon sequestration, urban forests also provide numerous
other benefits to communities including job creation, reduction in air
pollution and stormwater runoff, mitigation of the heat island effect,
and reductions in home energy costs for consumers. This multitude of
benefits means that for every $1 invested in urban forestry, it can
provide $2-$4 in returns.
The Urban Forests Act of 2021:

Creates a competitive matching grant program based on the
Arbor Day Foundation's Tree City USA Program to enhance and
maintain urban forests, particularly for communities with low
tree or environmental equity.

Supports local job creation through Job Corps by
establishing Civilian Conservation Centers in urban areas to
teach important technical skills related to urban forestry.

Creates a new pilot project that incentivizes innovative
products made from urban wood sources.

Adds carbon sequestration as a goal of the Forest Service's
Urban and Community Forestry Program and to the Ten-Year Urban
Forestry Action Plan.

Reauthorizes the National Urban and Community Forestry
Advisory Council[.] Increases the authorization of
appropriations for the Urban and Community Forestry Program to
$50 million for 5 years.

Improves data collected on urban forests through the Forest
Inventory and Analysis Program[.] Coordinates existing urban
forestry programs and research areas between different
departments and agencies.

Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, our constituents are asking for
solutions. The Urban Forests Act may not fix the issue of climate
change, but it most certainly a bipartisan step in the right direction
and should be part of the larger global conversation. This legislation
has received support from the National Association of State Foresters
and the Arbor Day Foundation.
I look forward to working with you and thank you for your time.
I yield back.
Submitted Legislation
1. H.R. 2477, Urban Forests Act of 2021: https://www.govinfo.gov/
content/pkg/BILLS-117hr2477ih/pdf/BILLS-117hr2477ih.pdf
(See p. 201).

The Chairman. Thank you so much, Congresslady, and you are
very right. I think your bill is getting good traction. I am
well aware of it, and we look forward to working with you on
the Urban Forest Act, House Bill 2471----
Ms. Malliotakis. 77.
The Chairman.--and if--pardon me?
Ms. Malliotakis. H.R. 2477, and Mr. Chairman, I would love
if you would consider sponsoring it yourself as well. Thank you
so much for your time.
The Chairman. H.R. 2477. Thank you for that. I really
appreciate it.
And that goes with our no-till farming, our cover crops.
These are things that we in agriculture can do and take the
lead in bringing down so much carbon in the air and getting it
back in the ground where we need it. So, thank you for that,
and I look forward to seeing this bill move.
Next, we have, I believe, Representative Kahele from
Hawaii.

STATEMENT OF HON. KAIALI`I KAHELE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM HAWAII

Mr. Kahele. Aloha Chairman Scott, aloha Members, Ranking
Member Thompson, and Members of the Committee on Agriculture.
Mahalo for hosting today's bipartisan Member Day hearing.
Mr. Chairman, agriculture in Hawaii is its third-largest
industry consisting of predominantly small, family-owned
operations that generate more than $1 billion in revenue
annually. These operations create businesses and job
opportunities and help keep our rural communities vibrant.
Hawaii leads the nation in the production of Kona coffee,
macadamia, ginger root, pineapples, bananas, taro, passion
fruit, and our floriculture industry generates more than $85
million in revenue each year.
Island geography, both within and between the Islands,
restricts businesses in various ways related to the economics
of operations. Fixed costs as a percentage of revenue are
higher for transportation, labor, energy, land, input, and
other operating expenses. Tropical and subtropical agriculture
and year-round growing seasons make it very challenging to
control insects, weeds, funguses, and plant diseases. And while
many farmers embrace integrated pest management techniques,
some are compelled to purchase expensive synthetic controls to
limit crop losses from noxious species. Separation from land-
grant universities and Federal research and development
laboratories further inhibits acquiring new and innovative
technologies in a timely manner. Additionally, Federal food
programs such as the Women, Infant, and Children Farmers'
Market Nutrition Program and the Senior Farmers' Market
Nutrition Program have been invaluable. Still, much can be done
to address the concerns and needs of Hawaii's and our nation's
agricultural, rural communities.
To address Hawaii's pressing agriculture needs, I first ask
the Committee to modernize Federal agriculture research
facilities and commit to a business plan to address land-grant
university research infrastructures. Our Hawaii research
facilities at the Daniel K. Inouye Pacific Basin Agriculture
Research Center in my hometown of Hilo, and the University of
Hawaii College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources,
otherwise known as CTAHR, are crucial to controlling tropical
agricultural insects, weeds, funguses, and plant diseases.
Second, I ask the Committee to examine ways to simplify the
application process for small producers under the Micro-Grants
for Food Security Program and increase the authorization level
for the MGFSP to $20 million. Third, I ask the Committee to
expand food hubs, food banks, community supported agriculture,
and food pantries in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. In
Hawaii, these programs provided fresh fruits, vegetables, and
protein to consumers in need, but they also helped stabilize
local farms by creating a demand for produce. Given Hawaii's
small-scale farm operations, food hubs, CSAs, and other outlets
which are very critical for food producers to sell their crops
at a fair market price.
Last, as Congress works to reauthorize the Farm Bill in
2023, I ask the Committee to establish in the 2023 Farm Bill a
program dedicated to area-wide integrated pest management. AIPM
techniques are the basis of the successful coffee berry borer
program. I will continue communicating Hawaii's priorities with
the Committee as you work on the 2023 Farm Bill.
I look forward to working with all of you. I wish I was on
the Agriculture Committee, Mr. Chairman. Hopefully, if I get to
come back, I get another chance. But I look forward to working
with you to strengthen our nation's farm programs.
I just want to Mahalo all of you for your commitment to
helping our farmers throughout the nation and in the Hawaiian
Islands.
Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kahele follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Kaiali`i Kahele, a Representative in
Congress from Hawaii
Aloha Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Thompson, and Members of the
Committee. Mahalo for hosting today's bipartisan Member Day hearing.
Agriculture is Hawai'i's third-largest industry consisting of
predominantly small, family-owned operations that generate more than $1
billion in revenue annually. These operations create business and job
opportunities and help keep our rural communities vibrant. Hawai'i
leads the nation in the production of coffee, macadamia, ginger root,
pineapples, bananas, taro, and passion fruit, and our floriculture
industry generates more than $85 million in revenue each year.
Island geography, both within and between Islands, restricts
businesses in various ways related to the economics of operations.
Fixed costs as a percentage of revenue are higher for transportation,
labor, energy, land, input, and other operating expenses. Tropical and
subtropical agriculture and year-round growing seasons make it
challenging to control insects, weeds, funguses, and plant diseases.
While many farmers embrace integrated pest management techniques, some
are compelled to purchase expensive synthetic controls to limit crop
losses from noxious species. Separation from land-grant universities
and Federal Research and Development Laboratories further inhibits
acquiring new and innovative technologies in a timely manner.
Additionally, Federal food programs such as the Women, Infant, and
Children Farmers' Market Nutrition Program and the Senior Farmers'
Market Nutrition Program have been invaluable. Still, much can be done
to address the concerns and needs of Hawai'i's and our nation's
agricultural, rural communities.
To address Hawai'i's pressing agriculture needs, I first ask the
Committee to modernize Federal agriculture research facilities and
commit to a business plan to address land-grant university research
infrastructures. Our Hawai'i research facilities at the Daniel K.
Inouye Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center and the University of
Hawai'i College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources are crucial
to controlling tropical agriculture insects, weeds, funguses, and plant
diseases. Second, I ask the Committee to examine ways to simplify the
application process for small producers under the Micro-Grants for Food
Security Program (MGFSP) and increase the authorization level for the
MGFSP to $20 million. Third, I ask that the Committee expand food hubs,
food banks, community support[ed] agriculture (CSA), and food pantries
in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. In Hawai'i, these programs
provided fresh fruits, vegetables, and protein to consumers in need,
but they also helped stabilize local farms by creating a demand for
produce. Given Hawai'i's small-scale farm operations, food hubs, CSAs,
and other outlets are critical demand-side outlets for food producers
to sell their crops at a fair market price.
Last, as Congress works to reauthorize the Farm Bill in 2023, I ask
the Committee to establish in the 2023 Farm Bill a program dedicated to
area-wide integrated pest management (AIPM).
AIPM techniques are the basis of the successful coffee berry borer
program. I will continue communicating Hawai'i's priorities with the
Committee as you work on the 2023 Farm Bill.
I look forward to working closely with you to strengthen our
nation's farm programs. Mahalo for your commitment to helping our
farmers nationally and in Hawai'i.

The Chairman. Well, thank you, Mr. Representative Kahele,
for your excellent presentation, and we would certainly enjoy
having you on our Agriculture Committee. I think you made some
very good points there, and as you know, our 1890s, our land-
grant colleges and universities are playing a vital role, and
we will certainly look favorably on your efforts to be included
with your land-grant universities that you mentioned in Hawaii.
And the food banks, we can't say enough for how they are
responding to this, as you know, we had a hearing on food
security and had our food banks in, and we are going to be
doing more to make sure our feeding America is very much
inclusive with Hawaii.
So, next we have Representative Lawson from the great State
of Florida, and a graduate of one of our land-grant schools, as
I am. My friend and fellow alumni from the great Florida A&M
University.

STATEMENT OF HON. AL LAWSON, Jr., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM FLORIDA

Mr. Lawson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is an honor to be
with you today, and to you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Thompson, I want to thank you all for your leadership on the
Agriculture Committee.
You know, today I would like to address, Mr. Chairman, two
bills that I have introduced that falls under the Committee
jurisdiction, and I am asking for swift passage. The first one,
Mr. Chairman, is through the Food Security Act of 2021, that is
H.R. 3100.
Sadly, in every corner, in almost every community around
the nation, families are impacted by food insecurity. I heard
you talk about it a few minutes ago. I have been diligent in
finding solutions to eradicate hunger. One of the most
important ways to tackle hunger in this country is by focusing
on how it impacts various subpopulations of our communities,
such as veterans, seniors, and college students.
This is why for the past two Congresses I have introduced
the College Student Hunger Act, and why this year I am proud to
be a lead cosponsor with Congresswoman Hayes and Congresswoman
Norma Torres for the Student Food Security Act.
A recent Government Accountability Office report revealed
that more than 30 percent of college students might face food
insecurity, and I know that is for a fact. The report also
found that almost two million at-risk students are potentially
eligible for SNAP benefits in 2016. The nontraditional college
student is now the traditional college students that we need to
have just as much concern for our community college and part-
time students as we do with our large, 4 year universities.
The bill removed barriers to low-income college students in
accessing SNAP benefits by expanding the eligibility criteria.
The bill also enabled the Federal Government, state colleges,
and universities to take a more proactive role in providing
outreach and support to food-insecure students. HBCUs and other
minority serving institutions would also receive priority.
I had the opportunity to visit food pantries on university
campuses and see not only do they distribute food to a lot of
students, but they even show a lot of them how to prepare the
food, which is so critically important.
I urge the Committee to take up this bill because it would
do a great deal in helping a lot of low-income students and
nontraditional students that we have on campus today.
The APEX Act which is one, H.R. 2698, I have introduced,
bipartisan, Aluminum Pricing Examination Act for the second
time in Congress because the aluminum market has experienced
unprecedented cost fluctuating that disconnected from market
fundamentals since the beginning of 2018. The bill normally
stems from pricing spikes and sole reference prices on users of
sheet aluminum, the Midwest Premium--call it the MWP. The MWP
is intended to serve as a shipping and handling cost for
transporting aluminum for a producer to the end-user has more
than doubled since the beginning of 2018. The unforeseeable
price variation has added hundreds of millions of dollars in
cost to the end-user and increased the price of soda, beer, and
other household goods for our constituents.
The APEX Act grants the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission proper statutory authority to conduct oversight of
an investigative price setting and reporting entities in the
aluminum market. APEX also provides the Department of Justice
the ability to consult with the CFTC to ensure all oversight
and regulatory actions are in accordance with the antitrust
statute. Additionally, the legislation affords the Attorney
General the opportunity to formally comment on the proposed
CFTC regulation action and guideline. Nothing in this
legislation--and I will repeat again, nothing in this
legislation allows for price setting by the government.
Again, I thank you for the opportunity to bring this before
the Committee.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lawson follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Al Lawson, Jr., a Representative in Congress
from Florida
Student Food Security Act of 2021
Sadly every comer and almost every community in our nation
is, one way or another, impacted by food insecurity.

I have been passionate in finding solutions to eradicate
hunger not only in Florida's Fifth Congressional District, but
through the Sunshine State and the nation.

One of the most important ways to tackle hunger is by
focusing on how it impacts various subpopulations of our
communities such as veterans, seniors, and college students.

This is why for the past two Congresses I have introduced the
College Student Hunger Act and why this year I am proud to be a
lead cosponsor, with Chairwoman Hayes and Rep. Norma Torres, of
the Student Food Security Act of 2021.
Facts on Food Insecurity among College Student Populations in the
United States
A recent Government Accountability Office report revealed
that more than 30% of college students might face food
insecurity.

The report also found that almost two million at-risk
students who are potentially eligible for SNAP benefits in
2016.

The nontraditional college student is now the traditional
student.

We need to have just as much concern for our community
college and part-time college students as we do with our large
4 year universities.

What this bill does: remove barriers to low-income college students
in accessing SNAP benefits by expanding the eligibility criteria. This
bill will also enable the Federal Government, states, colleges and
universities to take a more proactive role in providing outreach and
support to food-insecure students.
The Student Food Security Act
1. Increases low-income college students' eligibility for SNAP by
expanding eligibility to students who are eligible for work
study, have a $0 Expected Family Contribution, meet the
financial eligibility criteria for a maximum Pell Grant
(even if they have not filed the FAFSA), or are an
independent student whose household is otherwise eligible.

2. Increases outreach to eligible students by directing the
Department of Education to work with the Department of
Agriculture and other relevant agencies to notify students
that they may be eligible for benefits when they file their
application for Federal student aid.

3. Requires the Department of Education to collect data on food and
housing insecurity.

4. Creates a SNAP student hunger demonstration program that would
allow students to use their SNAP benefits at on-campus
dining facilities at up to ten institutions.

5. Establishes a $1 billion per year grant program to help
institutions of higher education identify and meet the food
and housing security of their students. Grants can be used
for research, planning, and implementation of a strategy to
conduct outreach to students and coordinate resources. At
least 33% of grants must go to community colleges, and
institutions with high percentages of Pell recipients,
Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), and
other Minority-Serving Institutions will also receive
priority.
APEX ACT
The Problem:

The aluminum market has experienced unprecedented cost
fluctuations that are disconnected from market fundamentals
since the beginning of 2018.

These anomalies stem from pricing spikes in the sole
reference price on end-users of sheet aluminum, the Midwest
Premium (MWP).

The MWP, which is intended to serve as a ``shipping and
handling'' cost for transporting aluminum from a producer to
end-user, has more than doubled since the beginning of 2018.

The unforeseen price variations have added hundreds of
millions of dollars in cost to end-users and increased the
price of soda, beer, and other household goods for our
constituents.

What This Bill Does

The Aluminum Pricing Examination (APEX) Act grants the
[Commodity] Futures Trading Commission's (CFTC) proper
statutory authority to conduct oversight of and investigate
price setting and reporting entities in the aluminum market.

The APEX Act also provides the Department of Justice (DOJ)
the ability to consult with the CFTC to ensure all oversight
and regulatory actions are in accordance with antitrust
statutes.

Additionally, the legislation affords the Attorney General
the opportunity to formally comment on any proposed CFTC
regulatory action or guideline.

Nothing in this legislation allows for price setting by the
government.
Submitted Legislation
1. H.R. 3100, Student Food Security Act of 2021: https://
www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-117hr3100ih/pdf/BILLS-
117hr3100ih.pdf (See p. 352).

2. H.R. 2698, Aluminum Pricing Examination Act (APEX Act): https://
www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-117hr2698ih/pdf/BILLS-
117hr26
98ih.pdf (See p. 346).

The Chairman. Well, thank you, Congressman Lawson. You
mentioned in your presentation that 30 percent of students face
food insecurity. Could you tell me what that study was again?
Mr. Lawson. It was a recent Government Accountability
Office report, and so, I would have to get information on that
back to you. I had this information on hand from the last--and
I thought it was very significant. I probably should write the
study down, but I will get the study to you.
The Chairman. And you also mentioned----
Mr. Lawson. Yes, it was a Government Accountability Office
study.
The Chairman. Okay, that is fine. It might be helpful to
us, because this supports your H.R. 3100, is that right?
Mr. Lawson. That is correct.
The Chairman. Okay, and it impacts and deals with
particularly hunger facing our veterans, our seniors, and
college students.
Mr. Lawson. That is correct.
The Chairman. All right, very good. I think that is
something that we need to move swiftly on, and that study would
be very helpful in boosting and making sure we get your bill
moving. So, I look forward to working with you on that.
[The report referred to is located on p. 421.]
The Chairman. Now, we will hear from Representative Ronny
Jackson from Texas.

STATEMENT OF HON. RONNY JACKSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM TEXAS

Mr. Jackson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member
Thompson for holding this hearing today and giving Members like
myself a chance to have their voices heard.
I just want to reiterate as well, I talked to Ranking
Member Thompson about this before, sir, but I, too, someday
want to be in the near future at the first opportunity would
like to be on the Committee as well. I have made that a
priority of mine during my time in Congress, however long that
should be.
Anyway, as you know, sir, agriculture issues are a top
priority for me and my constituents, as I represent the number
one ag district in the State of Texas, and the sixth overall ag
district in the United States. Texas's 13th Congressional
District is a top producer of cattle, cotton, wheat, dairy, and
much more, and I could not be prouder to speak on behalf of the
farmers and ranchers who make that possible in my district.
Unfortunately, these hard-working Americans have battled
numerous hardships over the past few years due to tariff
issues, market turmoil, disruptions caused by COVID-19, and
most recently, the disastrous weather events like the polar
vortex that struck Texas earlier this year.
The Chairman. I think--check your mute.
Mr. Jackson. Sorry about that, sir.
In an effort to help farmers to recover from these natural
disasters, I introduced H.R. 1692, the RESTORE Act
(Rehabilitating Economic Success Through Overcoming Rural
Emergencies Act), with my friend and colleague, Representative
Henry Cuellar. This bipartisan legislation would reauthorize
the Wildfire Hurricane Indemnity Program, the WHIP Program, for
2020 and 2021, and it would expand the program to cover crop
losses due to freezes and polar vortexes. This bill would also
increase coverage for droughts to ensure that all droughts are
covered as natural disasters under the WHIP Program, a
provision that will immensely help cotton producers across the
country.
Mr. Chairman, I come before the Committee today to urge
consideration for the RESTORE Act, to help extend a valuable
lifeline for the men and women who tirelessly work to feed our
great nation. This is an excellent opportunity to foster
bipartisanship and to support our farmers throughout this
tumultuous time.
I want to thank you again for holding this hearing and for
allowing me to present this legislation before your Committee.
I look forward to working with each of you on these issues in a
bipartisan and effective manner.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Jackson follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Ronny Jackson, a Representative in Congress
from Texas
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and [Ranking Member] Thompson for holding
this hearing today and giving Members like myself a chance to have
their voices heard.
As you all may know, agriculture issues are a top priority for me
and my constituents, as I represent the number one agriculture district
in Texas, and the sixth overall agriculture district in the United
States.
Texas's 13th Congressional District is a top producer of cattle,
cotton, wheat, dairy, and much more, and I could not be prouder to
speak to you on behalf of the farmers and ranchers who make that
possible.
Unfortunately, these hard-working Americans have battled numerous
hardships over the past few years due to market turmoil, disruptions
caused by COVID-19, and, most recently, disastrous weather events like
the polar vortex which struck Texas earlier this year.
In an effort to help farmers to recover from these natural
disasters, I introduced H.R. 1692, the RESTORE Act, with my friend and
colleague, Representative Henry Cuellar.
This bipartisan legislation would reauthorize the Wildfire
Hurricane Indemnity Program (WHIP) for 2020 and 2021, and it would
expand the program to cover crop losses due to freezes and polar
vortexes.
This bill would also increase coverage for droughts to ensure that
all droughts are covered as natural disasters under the WHIP Program, a
provision that will immensely help cotton producers across the country.
Mr. Chairman, I come before the Committee today to urge
consideration of the RESTORE Act, to help extend a valuable lifeline
for the men and women who tirelessly work to feed our great nation.
This is an excellent opportunity to faster bipartisanship and to
support our farmers throughout this tumultuous time.
Conclusion
Thank you again for holding this hearing and for allowing me to
present this legislation before the Committee.
I look forward to working with each of you on these issues in a
bipartisan and effective manner.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Submitted Legislation
1. H.R. 1692, Rehabilitating Economic Success Through Overcoming
Rural Emergencies Act (RESTORE Act): https://
www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-117hr1692ih/pdf/BILLS-
117hr1692ih.pdf (See p. 168).

The Chairman. Thank you very much, Congressman Jackson, and
your RESTORE Act, let me just tell you, this is an issue that
we are grappling with on Committee as I speak. Disaster aid is
so critical, and we, as everyone knows, I am trying to put
together an effort to create a separate, immediate disaster aid
fund so it doesn't have to go through the regular appropriation
process. It just takes too long, and many of our farms are done
away with because we moved too slow. And so, we are working on
a bill to set up a permanent disaster aid that is already there
that we can get help down to our farms in their time of need.
And we saw what happened in your great State of Texas. This
climate is causing us to really come up with your challenges
here.
So, I look forward to it, and you too would be welcome to
join our Committee, and we will speak on it. At the rate we are
going, we might need to expand our numbers. But we welcome you.
I often tell everybody this is our single-most important
Committee. It is the food we eat, the clothes we wear, the
water we drink, and our shelter. We can do without a lot of
things, but we cannot do without food, water, clothing, and our
shelter.
So, madam, is there anyone else? Okay. Before we adjourn,
let me just ask is there anyone else that may have come in,
missed, didn't hear? This has been wonderful, and we appreciate
it.
But before we adjourn, I want to invite our Ranking Member
to make any closing remarks that he would like to make, and
look forward to hearing from our Ranking Member. Ranking Member
Thompson, you are recognized.
Mr. Thompson. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much. Thank you to
all the Members that testified. We heard from ten Members today
with their verbal testimony, and quite frankly, they touched on
a lot of important issues that are facing rural America, our
farmers and ranchers, our food processors, all those within the
agriculture supply chain.
Mr. Chairman, we have a lot of good information. There are
some very specific bills that have been introduced that are
within our jurisdiction, which is exciting as well, that tackle
and takes on many of these issues. So, I just want to say thank
you to you, and certainly to all of the Members who took the
time to prepare and to present and to share with our Committee.
I think this informs us, going forward, so that we can proceed
and continue our shared passion and goal to do our very best
for rural America and for the folks who provide us our food,
our feed, and our fiber.
So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. Well, thank you, Ranking Member, and I agree
with you 100 percent. It has been a very, very thoughtful, good
presentations, and we got some great Members out there, both on
the Committee and those that, as you see, Mr. Chairman, and
heard, there are others that want to be on this Committee with
us. And so, we certainly welcome that.
And, I just want to thank all of you for taking the time.
Our staff has been here recording and making sure that your
inputs have been heard, and we certainly stand ready to help
each of these Members in the forward progress of their issues
and their concerns, because they are all of our concerns.
And so, with that, under the Rules of the Committee, the
record of today's hearing will remain open for 10 calendar days
to receive supplementary material from any Member who
testified, or offered written testimony today.
So, now this hearing of the Committee on Agriculture is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:13 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
Submitted Letter of Hon. Jodey C. Arrington, a Representative in
Congress from Texas
May 28, 2021

Chairman Scott and Ranking Member Thompson:

Thank you for providing Members the opportunity to share our
priorities for the 117th Congress. As a former Member of the House
Agriculture Committee, I know firsthand the important role of this
Committee and the responsibility you have to support our nation's
farmers and ranchers. As the Representative of a rural district, my top
priority is to champion policies which protect and promote a strong,
vibrant, and secure food supply chain.
No other region in the world produces more food, fuel, or fiber
than west Texas. In fact, my district is home to more than 14 million
acres of farmland and generates over $12 billion in agriculture related
revenue. Our producers are not only the backbone of our economy, but
the epicenter of America's food supply and security.
One issue of immediate importance to farmers in my district, is the
need to extend the Wildfire Hurricane Indemnity Program (WHIP) to cover
2020 and 2021 losses. Congress authorized supplemental assistance to
producers for 2017, 2018, and 2019 due to historic and widespread
production losses experienced due to severe weather. I urge the
Committee to quickly extend WHIP to cover 2020 and 2021 losses,
including those due to the worsening nationwide drought.
Given the essential, yet volatile nature of the agriculture
industry, it is critical Congress consistently provides our producers
access to the personnel and safety nets they need. As we work to lay
the groundwork for the next farm bill, it is important that future
legislation defends our existing safety nets, like Price Loss Coverage
(PLC) and the Livestock Indemnity Program (LIP), as well as develops
permanent solutions to ad hoc programs, like WHIP, which have become
vital for producers across the nation.
It must also address the Farm Service Agency (FSA) public health
protocols relating to staffing levels which have kept local offices
completely closed or minimally staffed for far too long. As a result,
the review of applications for crucial relief programs has all but
stopped in many offices and created significant backlog. These
prolonged closures have limited producer's ability to apply for vital
farm bill assistance programs, and therefore must be address[ed] by
this Committee.
I believe one of the greatest threats facing our producers and
their livelihoods are extreme and unscientific environmental policies,
like the Green New Deal and Waters of the United States (WOTUS), which
target the agriculture industry. False narratives on agriculture's role
in climate change not only deceive the public, but they distort the
market and disrupt our food supply chain. No one cares more about
natural resource stewardship or has more motivation to achieve greater
sustainability than those farmers and ranchers whose livelihoods depend
on it. This Committee must promote reasonable policies and reject over-
regulation of an industry which is essential to our economic and
national security interests.
Unfortunately, anti-growth tax proposals have also become a
formidable threat for agriculture families. President Biden's proposal
to double the capital gains rate, while imposing it at death and over
the appreciation of past generations is a threat to landowners and
family-owned businesses across the country. For more than a century,
producers have had to endure the punishing death tax, but to
effectively create an additional death tax, is highly concerning and
problematic. As a Member of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Select
Revenue Measures, I will push back on any tax proposals that will harm
American families, including family-owned farms and ranches.
As a Member of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade, I look
forward to working with the House Agriculture Committee to advance
trade policy that prioritizes American producers. Due to the previous
Administration's commitment to freer and fairer trade agreements, we
have made significant market improvements through the China Phase One
Agreement, U.S.-Japan Trade Agreement, and U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement
(USMCA). It is imperative we continue to ensure American agricultural
exporters, and many other sectors of our economy, receive the full
benefit of the improved trade deals by vigilant enforcement.
Additionally, we must be in constant pursuit of new global markets,
including the United Kingdom, Kenya, and Asian Pacific nations, for our
farmers and ranchers. With worldwide demand for food on the rise, we
must ensure there is no one better equipped to lead the charge of
feeding a hungry world than American producers.
For our farmers and ranchers to access global markets, we must
invest in critical infrastructure to ensure the safe and efficient
transportation of products from farm to market. An imperative aspect of
the ability to support the flow of goods is a healthy workforce. To
safeguard our nation's ability to feed and fuel the world, we must
ensure rural Americans have access to basic and affordable healthcare.
Last, despite the gains made in the 2018 Farm Bill, millions of
American farmers do not have access to reliable Internet. As the
agriculture industry modernizes, broadband is increasingly important in
all levels of production. We must close the digital divide by providing
reliable broadband to all communities, rural and urban.
For several years, our producers have experienced price declines,
retaliatory tariffs, severe weather, drought, and other hardships that
have been out of their control. Most recently, the COVID-19 pandemic
has tested our supply chain resilience and reminded Americans that
having an affordable and abundant supply of food, independent of
foreign adversaries, is essential. We must support and promote American
agriculture, and I look forward to working with you in these endeavors.
Sincerely,

Jodey C. Arrington,
Member of Congress.
______

Submitted Letter of Hon. Steve Cohen, a Representative in Congress from
Tennessee
May 18, 2021

Chairman Scott:

Thank you for allowing other Members of Congress to discuss our
priorities that come before this Committee. With President Biden and
the Democratic majorities, the 117th Congress has a unique opportunity
to deliver for the American people. The 2020 elections were a mandate
to overcome Washington's exhausting rhetoric, address systemic
inequality, and deliver essential services so that everyone can prosper
and enjoy equal protections regardless of their socioeconomic status,
race, faith, sexual orientation, or [ZIP C]ode. To that end, I'm
sharing the following bill, which ends discriminatory food assistance
restrictions that harm the formerly incarcerated after their release.
Ensuring affordable access to food for all groups is a critical issue
for my constituents in Memphis and the American people. I look forward
to working with your leadership to reach this much-needed reform.
The [H.R. 2837,] Making Essentials Affordable and Lawful (MEAL)
Act, which I introduced with Representatives Moore, Watson Coleman and
Hayes, lifts food assistance restrictions for those with prior felony
drug convictions. Annually, over 600,000 people are released from
prisons in the United States. Current SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program) and TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families)
policies prevent or restrict the formerly incarcerated from receiving
food benefits. These policies disproportionately harm people of color
and women, and especially the families and children of the formerly
incarcerated. SNAP and TANF barriers also promote recidivism, impair
substance use recovery efforts, and harm the long-term reentry of the
formerly incarcerated. The MEAL Act eliminates these discriminatory and
unfair practices. Specifically, this bill allows people with prior
felony drug convictions to receive SNAP and TANF benefits without
restrictions. The MEAL Act also codifies the United States Department
of Agriculture (USDA) waiver that allows prisoners to apply for SNAP
and TANF up to 30 days before they are released, ensuring that they can
meet their basic needs as soon as they reenter society.
As you know, these barriers disproportionately affect women and
people of color, and families with children are especially harmed by
this ban. Restoring access to these programs is critical in light of
the COVID-19 pandemic and economic downturn.
This bill has been endorsed by more than 50 civil rights, reentry,
public health and faith-based organizations at the national and state
level including the American Bar Association, Leadership Conference for
Civil and Human Rights, NAACP, National Council of Churches and the
Drug Policy Alliance.
A portion of the bill is also included in President Biden's
American Rescue Plan, which cites that ``denying these individuals--
many of whom are parents of young children--SNAP benefits jeopardizes
nutrition security and poses a barrier to re-entry into the community
in a population that already faces significant hurdles to obtaining
employment and stability.'' I believe the same rationale also holds for
repealing the TANF ban and demonstrates why it is so important to get
the MEAL Act enacted.
Thank you, Chair[man] Scott, for the opportunity to discuss this
critical matter for my district and the American people. I look forward
to working with you on delivering a more just and equitable society for
all.
As always I remain,
Most Sincerely,

Steve Cohen,
Member of Congress.
Submitted Legislation
1. H.R. 2837, Making Essentials Available and Lawful (MEAL) Act of
2021: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-
117hr2837ih/pdf/BILLS-117hr2837ih.pdf (See p. 349).
______

Submitted Statement of Hon. Ron Estes, a Representative in Congress
from Kansas
Thank you, Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Thompson, and my
colleagues for providing the opportunity to share with the House
Agriculture Committee the concerns that are of utmost priority for
Kansas' 4th District.
During the coronavirus pandemic, the digital divide in our country
has become more apparent. Affordable, dependable broadband access is
necessary for the growth and development of rural communities. To
combat this issue, consumer-owned electric cooperatives use RUS
Electric Loans to finance electricity distribution, transmission, and
generation to provide service to roughly 42 million consumers every
day. These loans are repaid with interest and have an excellent track
record of repayment. In 2019, U.S. Treasury received $219 million in
electric loan payments.
RUS Electric loans are used to build on infrastructure that would
expand broadband for rural communities across the country. Improving
rural connectivity paves a path for producers to farm smarter through
precision agriculture. Precision agriculture ``does more with less,''
aiding farmers in further conserving and becoming better stewards of
their precious land. Moreover, improving broadband access results in
better access to telemedicine, increased opportunity for businesses to
engage with customers, and supplemental education for children in
school. I am a proud supporter of the RUS Electric Loan Program.
Another topic I would like to touch upon is the importance of
research and development, specifically within the agricultural
community. Crop genetics research is done in Kansas to enhance yields,
fight diseases and pests, adapt to changing climates, and reduce global
food insecurity. Ultimately, this type of research focused on utilizing
ancient crop plant ancestors will mobilize genetic diversity, meet
consumer demands, and protect the global food supply.
Funding toward the Wheat Genetics Resource Center (WGRC) greatly
benefits Kansas agriculture. WGRC allows Kansas to remain a top
producer by providing the newest technology and knowledge available.
This research, done in the heart of the Great Plains, allows Kansans to
adopt sustainable practices, leaving their land in better shape than
they found it.
Thank you for the opportunity to share my perspective with the
House Agriculture Committee. I am excited to move forward and
collaborate with each of you as we stand up for our rural communities
across the country.
______

Submitted Statement of Hon. Bob Good, a Representative in Congress from
Virginia
Thank you, Chairman Scott, and Ranking Member Thompson for the
opportunity to testify. As the Representative of Virginia's Fifth
Congressional District, I look forward to working with you to help
provide access to reliable broadband for rural communities.
We stand at a unique point in our nation's history, with a wealth
of resources at our fingertips in some regions of the country,
meanwhile other regions have fallen behind due to a lack of broadband
connectivity. For far too long, too many Americans have lacked access
to the affordable, high-speed broadband services they need to
participate in today's increasingly digital world.
I agree with the Ranking Member's statement on April 20th: ``As
more of American life is being put online, more of it is being put out
of reach of Americans without high-speed Internet access, and those
without are falling further behind.'' By bridging the widening digital
divide, rural networks play a critical role in serving key parts of our
economy, including farmers, and rural landowners.
Past attempts to connect rural America have resulted in the
allocation of substantial amounts of Federal funds for broadband
deployment. Though these investments have been helpful contributions,
we have not fully achieved the connectivity needed for success in the
growing digital economy, The fundamental problem is too many government
policies and burdensome regulations have stifled the ability to build-
out our networks.
As Congress considers legislation affecting farmers and rural
communities, I hope the Committee will work to help bridge the digital
divide to the over 23 million Americans who lack access to broadband,
including nearly 50% of rural Virginians. Congress should prioritize
reducing burdensome regulations to the deployment process, increasing
access to existing infrastructure, and narrowly targeting existing
funding to avoid wasteful spending.
I thank Chairman Scott and Ranking Member Thompson again for the
opportunity to testify. I look forward to working with the Committee to
provide reliable access to broadband that is so desperately needed in
our rural communities.
______

Submitted Statement of Hon. Joe Neguse, a Representative in Congress
from Colorado
Thank you Chairman Scott and Ranking Member Thompson for the
opportunity to testify regarding some of my priorities within the
Agriculture Committee's jurisdiction.
Civilian Climate Corps
I'd first like to highlight one of my top priorities, the
establishment of the Civilian Climate Corps. In 2020, Colorado has
faced our fair share of challenges: a once-in-a-century pandemic,
economic hardship, and historic wildfires. To address these
unprecedented challenges, to make historic investments in wildfire
suppression, mitigation, resiliency, and recovery and to restore our
lands and our communities, I strongly support the creation of a
reimagined 21st Century Civilian Climate Corps.
That is why I introduced the Civilian Climate Corps Act (H.R.
2241), alongside Congresswoman Spanberger and the 21st Century
Conservation Corps Act, (H.R. 1162) with Representatives Kilmer,
Lowenthal, Huffman, and Blumenauer. These bills seek to reimagine the
conservation corps of the 1930's, a bold proposal that will put
hundreds of thousands of Americans back to work and train the next
generation of climate and resiliency workers to support our
communities, by assisting our wildland firefighters with fire
suppression; restoring our lands through road maintenance, trail
restoration and construction; and reducing the public lands maintenance
backlog. Our plan would invest in our local economies, supporting our
outdoor recreation industry, expand access to the outdoors and support
the lands that we love.
The Civilian Climate Corps will prioritize equity and inclusion,
help us tackle the climate crisis, put people back to work, and address
wildfires in Colorado by providing the needed resources to our local
communities to protect our watersheds, invest in reforestation,
wildfire resiliency and more. I urge the Committee to support these
proposals.
Joint Chiefs Landscape Restoration Partnership Act
I also urge the Committee's support for the bipartisan, bicameral
Joint Chiefs Landscape Restoration Partnership Act of 2021 (H.R. 3211)
to formally authorize the United States Department of Agriculture's
(USDA) Joint Chiefs' Landscape Restoration Partnership Initiative
(Joint Chiefs) to better support forest and grassland restoration
projects across public and private land. The unique nature of this
initiative is that it supports voluntary restoration projects across
ownership boundaries, so that treatments can occur across a landscape,
rather than stopping at public or private land.
Since USDA launched Joint Chiefs in 2014, the initiative has
supported 93 projects, including two in Colorado, and treated 300,000
acres of hazardous fuels, restored 29,000 acres in priority watersheds,
and enhanced 200,000 acres of wildlife habitat. The Joint Chiefs
Landscape Restoration Partnership Act of 2021 would formally establish
the program at USDA, double its funding to help meet demand, and
improve outreach and accountability.
Sustainable Agriculture Research Act
I would also like to highlight the [H.R. 1363,] Sustainable
Agriculture Research Act, which I have reintroduced this Congress with
Congressman Rodney Davis. This bipartisan legislation would provide
Federal support for sustainable agriculture and soil research through
the Agriculture Advanced Research and Development Authority (AGARDA)
program.
The Sustainable Agriculture Research Act [w]ould amend the
legislation authorizing AGARDA to add goals that explicitly address
carbon sequestration and reduction of emissions. I encourage the
Committee to continue their important work in utilizing agriculture as
a climate solution by considering this legislation.
Secure Rural Schools Reauthorization Act
Finally, I urge the Committee to support the bipartisan Secure
Rural Schools Reauthorization Act of 2021 (H.R. 2099) to provide
funding to mountain communities and rural areas across the United
States, through funds for rural schools, emergency response and road
maintenance.
The bill provides supplemental Federal funding to counties across
the United States that are home to large areas of tax-exempt National
Forests and Federal Lands. The program provides payments derived in
part through timber receipts and other leasing activities within
National Forests back to county governments where those forests are
located to support local schools, and emergency operations. This
legislation is critical for supporting quality education and ensuring
that all students and educators in the United States have access to the
resources they need to succeed.
Closing
In closing, thank you Chairman Scott and Ranking Member Thompson
for the opportunity to testify regarding some of my agriculture
priorities. I look forward to working with the Committee on these
issues and many more.
Submitted Legislation
1. H.R. 1162, 21st Century Conservation Corps Act: https://
www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-117hr1162ih/pdf/BILLS-
117hr1162ih.pdf (See p. 92).

2. H.R. 1363, Sustainable Agriculture Research Act: https://
www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-117hr1363ih/pdf/BILLS-
117hr1363ih.pdf (See p. 165).

3. H.R. 2099, Secure Rural Schools Reauthorization Act of 2021:
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-117hr2099ih/pdf/
BILLS-117hr2099ih.pdf (See p. 179).

4. H.R. 2241, Civilian Climate Corps Act of 2021: https://
www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-117hr2241ih/pdf/BILLS-
117hr2241ih.pdf (See p. 189).

5. H.R. 3211, Joint Chiefs Landscape Restoration Partnership Act of
2021: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-
117hr3211ih/pdf/BILLS-117hr3211ih.pdf (See p. 387).
______

Submitted Letter of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in
Congress from New Jersey
May 28, 2021

Hon. David Scott,
Chairman,
House Agriculture Committee,
Washington, D.C.;

Hon. Glenn Thompson,
Ranking Minority Member,
House Agriculture Committee,
Washington, D.C.

Dear Chairman Scott and Ranking Member Thompson,

Thank you for providing me the opportunity to submit testimony to
your Committee. As co-chair of the Coastal Communities Caucus, I would
like to highlight the need for a stronger and more equitable commitment
to the seafood industry, which is a key sector of U.S. food production.
While the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) does share
jurisdiction with the Department of Commerce in this space, USDA can do
more to support the nation's seafood industry by complementing the
programming of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and filling
gaps where Federal assistance is needed. Though some of USDA's grant
and purchasing programs are open to some seafood producers and
fishermen, many medium- and small-sized operations are unaware of that
fact due to sector participants historically weak relationship with the
agency. USDA should work in coordination with NMFS to foster a better
relationship with industry leaders and fishing communities. USDA cannot
have a truly holistic approach to the U.S. food economy if the seafood
sector is considered an afterthought for its mission and programming. A
stronger USDA and seafood sector relationship will provide benefits to
all Americans, including a stronger and more competitive U.S. food
economy, jobs, supply chain resiliency, reduction of greenhouse gas
emissions, and nutrition assistance.
I would recommend the following to improve the situation:
Seafood Processing
There is a shortage of community-driven shoreside infrastructure
and seafood processing capability in the U.S. Many fishermen are forced
to send their catch to foreign processing facilities in order to
prepare the product for sale and consumption in our domestic market. In
the interest of keeping more seafood production in the U.S. to maintain
our national competitiveness, create more sector resilience during
future challenges, and provide more jobs for American workers, USDA
should ensure more grant funding geared toward processing equipment and
cold storage be given to seafood producers and fishing communities.
More domestic processing capabilities will enhance our U.S. supply
chain, ensure fresh, local and affordable products reach people
quickly, and curb greenhouse gas emissions.
Prior to the pandemic, the majority of New Jersey seafood was
consumed in restaurants. As restaurants remained closed due to public
health concerns, our fishermen have been struggling to stay afloat due
to the drastic decline in restaurant consumption. This is the case for
many other states as well, with an estimated 68 percent of the $102.2
billion that consumers paid for U.S. fishery products in 2017 being
spent at food service establishments. Restaurants play an important
role in the seafood supply chain. They serve not only as an end market,
but their staffs knowledgeably process seafood into meals. During the
pandemic, many fishermen have attempted to scale direct-to-consumer
sales to make up for lost income due to restaurant closures. However,
most U.S. consumers lack the capability to process and store seafood in
a way that restaurants or industrial processing facilities are able. A
significant investment in local processing capabilities by USDA, would
create greater sector resilience by allowing fishermen to diversify end
markets for their product and eliminate an overreliance on restaurants
and foreign processing facilities.
Seafood Purchasing for Relief and Nutrition Programs
Additionally, after speaking with fishing communities, I believe
that expanding seafood purchasing and the list of seafood ordered by
the USDA, if done correctly to stabilize prices (and not to encourage
``race to the bottom'' bidding) could resecure the sector and lead to a
strong recovery. The fact that the Agricultural Market Service's
purchasing programs acquire 100 percent domestically produced and
processed commodity food products, would help create and encourage even
more resiliency in the sector.
Furthermore, these proposals would not only help to support and
grow the U.S. seafood industry, but also allow more fishermen to
benefit from USDA crisis programs, such as The Emergency Food
Assistance Program (TEFAP), which has played a central role in USDA's
COVID-relief efforts for American food producers and people
experiencing hunger. Though USDA has added more seafood products in its
purchases since the COVID-19 crisis, fishermen and shellfish farmers
have been unable to access this important relief program due to the
lack of processing and packaging capability, as well as pricing
disparities.
This also means many Americans that rely on food banks and prepared
meal organizations are denied healthy seafood as part of their diet.
USDA should give grants and technical assistance to hunger
organizations so they can purchase the infrastructure and obtain the
necessary certifications, if needed, to safely work with seafood
purchased from local fishermen. Schools, particularly those located
within fishery communities, are also an excellent potential end market
for local seafood. According to USDA, children require omega-3 fatty
acids, which are found in seafood, for brain, eye, and nerve
development. Income should not be a barrier to receiving the
nutritional benefits of seafood.
Marketing
It is concerning that the U.S. does not have a comprehensive
domestic seafood marketing campaign, putting our nation at a
significant disadvantage. Last year alone, Canada and Australia spent
millions marketing their seafood products through national programs. In
addition, the U.S. has perhaps the world's strongest environmental,
labor, and human rights standards for seafood production. Yet, U.S.
consumers still have significant access to seafood at restaurants and
markets from trade partners which may participate in harmful illegal,
unreported, and unregulated fishing practices.
The USDA can play an important role in supporting domestic
consumption of U.S. seafood through marketing initiatives. A national
marketing program would provide significant assistance to the industry
and help encourage more consumers to purchase seafood for home
consumption, as opposed to only or primarily eating seafood in
restaurants. A national marketing program, including television
commercials or other forms of media, would enable the sector to pivot
from the difficulties of the COVID-19 pandemic to a future where more
Americans are consuming healthy seafood products, produced locally and
processed domestically. Because seafood products are seasonal,
marketing focused on promoting U.S. seafood in season would create even
more resiliency for the sector and educate consumers who may have
become more concerned about supply chains during COVID-19 and want to
use the purchasing power to support domestic and even local fishermen.
A national marketing strategy would also help consumers understand
how to cook or appreciate underutilized seafood, which may be more
prevalent or inexpensive but not something that the average home cook
has experience preparing. Direct-to-consumer sales have helped many
seafood producers weather the pandemic and USDA could build upon those
efforts through additional marketing resources.
Outreach to Stakeholders
Finally, USDA should work to do outreach with seafood stakeholder
groups to ensure that there is a line of communication open with an
integral part of the nation's food production. This would also help
guarantee that assistance provided to food producers is structured in a
way that is appropriate and beneficial for these industries as well.
There has been a significant disconnect between the agency and small to
medium sized seafood producers in both rural and urban areas, with many
unaware that they can even apply to USDA programs.
As a Member of a coastal community with constituents involved in
the seafood industry, I stand by to assist the Committee or agency
leaders in facilitating conversations with stakeholders and creating
legislative solutions to improve the Federal Government's commitment to
this important food sector. Taking these steps will ensure that there
is more equity in assistance for our seafood producers and allow us to
continue to build sustainable agriculture infrastructure and a
resilient U.S. food economy.
Thank you for your consideration of my requests.
Sincerely,

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Frank Pallone, Jr.,
Member of Congress.
______

Submitted Statement of Hon. Scott Perry, a Representative in Congress
from Pennsylvania
Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Thompson, Members of the Committee:
I encourage the House Agriculture Committee to join me in protecting
American consumers, workers and manufacturers from further government-
imposed harm. The SWEETER Act--previously known as the SWEET Act in
previous Congressional iterations--would eliminate the hidden tax on
consumers that props up the sugar industry through various market
distortions intended to artificially inflate the domestic price of
sugar. Whatever the intent of the program, it has come to represent the
worst type of corporate-cronyism; using the power of the Federal
Government to bestow massive financial benefits on a concentrated group
of politically-connected sugar producers while exacting significant
costs on consumers, the domestic food manufacturing industry, and the
economy as a whole. It is past time to end corporate giveaways and
bring our policies in line with the free market.
Rooted in a Depression-era emergency relief program, the current
sugar program is comprised of four pillars--price support loans,
domestic marketing allotments, tariff rate quotas, and the Feedstock
Flexibility Program that work in concert to limit the domestic supply
of sugar to artificially inflate the domestic price. The program has
been wildly successful at achieving this goal--inflating the domestic
price of sugar to twice the global rate on average. However, the
program imposes significant costs to the American consumer; to the tune
of $2.4-$4 billion annually. Previous CBO estimates have assessed that
the sugar program will impose an approximately $120 million cost over
the next 10 years--a cost that will be borne by the American Taxpayer.
In Ranking Member Glenn Thompson's home state of Pennsylvania,
40,000 Pennsylvanians work in sugar-intensive industries; we cannot sit
idly by and allow the program to continue its economic devastation and
threaten these family-sustaining jobs. Proponents of the sugar program
insist it's necessary to protect American jobs, but a 2006 Department
of Commerce study found that for every sugar industry job saved by the
sugar program; three jobs in the food manufacturing industry are lost.
In fact, sugar-intensive manufacturers lose between 17,000 and 20,000
jobs per year as a result of the sugar program. The truth is the sugar
program puts sugar-intensive manufacturers in the impossible position
of choosing between offshoring jobs and going out of business; either
way, the American worker loses.
I plan to introduce the SWEETER Act on Wednesday June 16th * and
would appreciate the opportunity to work with my colleagues on the
House Agriculture Committee to ensure robust support for this policy.
Clearly, the costs of the sugar program far outweigh the benefits to a
small group of special interests. It is time to reject corporate-
cronyism and instead, support American workers, consumers, and
manufacturers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Editor's note: the legislation referred to was not introduced on
June 16, 2021. H.R. 5680, Saving Workers by Eliminating Economic
Tampering and Ensuring Reliability Act (SWEETER Act) was introduced on
October 22, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am grateful for the Committee's consideration of my request and
look forward to working with each of you to ensure that the American
People no longer bear the burden of the anachronistic sugar program.
Submitted Legislation
1. H.R. 5680, Saving Workers by Eliminating Economic Tampering and
Ensuring Reliability Act (SWEETER Act): https://
www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-117hr5680ih/pdf/BILLS-
117hr5680ih.pdf (See p. 407).
______

Submitted Letter of Hon. August Pfluger, a Representative in Congress
from Texas
May 27, 2021

Hon. David Scott, Hon. Glenn Thompson,
Chairman, Ranking Minority Member,
House Committee on Agriculture, House Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.; Washington, D.C.

Chairman Scott and Ranking Member Thompson,

Thank you for providing the opportunity to highlight the needs and
priorities of farmers and ranchers in Texas' 11th District. I am proud
to represent a rural district in west Texas that has over 15 million
acres of farm and ranch land worked by diligent producers who not only
feed and clothe the State of Texas, but the entire nation.
As you well know, farm and ranch production systems are not only
critical for our local, state, and national economies, but also play a
key role in strengthening our national security, A nation that can feed
itself is inherently safer and more secure than one that cannot. The
United States--thanks to smart policies like the 2018 Farm Bill--
retains the safest, most abundant, and affordable food supply in the
world. Producers in west Texas play a large part in this
accomplishment, and Congress should continue to prioritize our rural
communities and Texas farmers and ranchers,
The following priorities reflect feedback I hear frequently from
the communities I represent:
Invest in Rural Broadband: Too many of my constituents live on the
wrong side of the digital divide, and rural America needs additional
investment for access to high-speed internet for work, healthcare, and
educational opportunities. Increasing the availability for reliable
broadband remains essential for economic prosperity in our communities.
I am thankful for Ranking Member Thompson's leadership in introducing
the [H.R. 3369] Broadband for Rural America Act, and I am proud to be a
cosponsor of this important piece of legislation.
Protect the Safety Net: With the ever-increasing challenges for
farm and ranch operators, a strong and durable safety net is necessary
so producers can continue to provide the food and fiber we depend on.
Additionally, I remain hopeful Congress can act to reauthorize the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Wildfire Hurricane Indemnity Program Plus
(WHIP+) to cover disasters from 2020 and 2021.
Predator Control: Last year, the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) estimated that farmers and ranchers sustained
roughly $232 million in livestock death loss due to predation. As
producers continue to grapple with effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and
regulatory uncertainty, we must develop more efficient methods to
control invasive species and mitigate predation losses to livestock.
Promote Trade Opportunities for U.S. Agriculture: A pro-growth,
America-first trade agenda that allows for more made-in-Texas goods to
be shipped globally is critical for producers' economic outlook. It is
imperative that Congress supports new trade agreements with strong
agriculture provisions, as well as pursues vigorous enforcement of the
China Phase One Agreement and the recently ratified United States-
Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA).
Fight Policies that Harm Rural America: I remain deeply concerned
about President Biden's plan to pursue trillions in crippling tax hikes
that will sabotage America's economic recovery. To that end, it is
vital Congress preserve stepped-up basis so family owned agricultural
operations can be passed along to the next generation and continue to
grow our economy. Additionally, burdensome regulatory policies stemming
from the outdated Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Obama-era
Water[s] of the United S[t]ates (WOTUS) can be disastrous for
agricultural production throughout the country. Cutting bureaucratic
red tape and rolling back unnecessary regulations remains paramount.
Thank you, again, for this opportunity. I stand ready to assist you
both as we work to find solutions that benefit Texas and the entire
nation.
Sincerely,

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

August Pfluger,
Member of Congress.
Submitted Legislation
1. H.R. 3369, Broadband for Rural America Act: https://
www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-117hr3369ih/pdf/BILLS-
117hr3369ih.pdf (See p. 394).
______

Submitted Statement of Hon. Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, a Delegate
in Congress from Northern Mariana Islands
Members of the Committee are tired of hearing this, I know, but the
people I represent must be included in the Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program, SNAP.
The Marianas is not currently part of SNAP, but instead receives a
block grant, which has been shown over and over to be an inadequate
response to combating food insecurity.
Just last October, families I am responsible for were cut from the
block grant program because there was not enough fiscal 2021 money
available to feed everyone in need. Families that were not cut
completely from the program had their benefits cut 25 percent.
I hope we can all agree it is unacceptable to be cutting food aid
in the middle of the economic crisis caused by the pandemic.
I was able to get supplemental funding for fiscal 2021 in
December's appropriation and additional funding in the American Rescue
Plan.
And I urged local authorities to trust I would be able to get that
extra money and not to cut benefits.
But I was ignored, and families went hungry.
This story is not new. Throughout my tenure in Congress, I have had
repeatedly to ask for funding to supplement the block grant--a series
of stop-gap solutions.
But this hit-and-miss approach to funding is no way for the Federal
Government to run a program that people's very lives depend on.
And there is a simple solution. Treat the people I represent in the
Mariana Islands the same way their fellow U.S. citizens are treated in
all fifty states, the District of Columbia, Guam, and the Virgin
Islands: Include my people in SNAP.
SNAP is set up to respond to changing economic conditions, natural
disasters, pandemics, and changes in food prices.
SNAP provides a basic level of food assistance to those in need.
And by doing so SNAP benefits all of us.
Because when children have adequate access to food, they do better
in school and eventually become productive members of society.
When adults are adequately fed, they can work and pull their
families out of poverty and out of reliance on Federal programs like
SNAP.
I have introduced legislation to add the Marianas to SNAP: H.R.
421, the AYUDA Act, which currently has 29 cosponsors.
I have had encouraging discussions with Secretary Vilsack and
Deputy [Under S]ecretary Dean about their existing statutory authority
to extend SNAP to the Marianas with any transitional adjustments they
deem necessary.
And I have raised this issue time and again with this Committee and
with our staff.
I am not going to give up--or go away.
I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the AYUDA Act, and I look forward
to more discussions with USDA and FNS to make SNAP in the Marianas a
reality.
Thank you.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Member of Congress.
Submitted Legislation

1. H.R. 421, Assuring You Uniform Dietary Assistance (AYUDA) Act of
2021 (AYUDA Act): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/
BILLS-117hr421ih/pdf/BILLS-117hr421ih.pdf (See p. 89).
______

Submitted Statement of Hon. Michael F. Q. San Nicolas, a Delegate in
Congress from Guam
Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Thompson, and Members of the House
Committee on Agriculture--

Hafa Adai and thank you for the opportunity to highlight Guam's
needs to secure food safety and affordability, enhance food security,
and to ensure the competitiveness of American agriculture.
Food security has and always will be one of the most important
aspects of our nation's prosperity. From the first Thanksgiving to the
present realities highlighted by today's global health crisis, we have
recognized the importance of food for the strength and upward mobility
of our communities. While we are aware that food insecurity affects
neighborhoods across the country, the problem is more so exacerbated in
the territories due to the considerable distance between our islands
and access to adequate food sources.
To satisfy the holistic food needs of our region, the people of
Guam and its neighboring territories must resort to a fixed reliance on
importation and sourcing from neighboring Asian nations. In fact,
approximately 90% of Guam's consumed foods are imported and within the
last 10 years, total imports comprised 68.1% and 57.7% of all surface
and air cargo respectively.\1\ This demonstrated dependence on
communities beyond our shores to feed our people leaves the health and
well-being of Americans living in Guam vulnerable to circumstances
beyond our control. For example, limited shipping lanes may dissolve at
a moment's notice, and this pandemic has emphasized that fragility.
Additionally, Guam's dependency on food availability dictated by import
conditions such as policy, weather, and trade adversely impact the
access to nutritious food options and contributes further to the
current public health crisis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Christie Nicoson, ``Positive Peace and Food Security in Guam.''
Rotary Peace Center, November 2016. http://worldwithoutgenocide.org/wp-
content/uploads/2016/09/Food-Security-in-Guam-2016.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In an effort to resolve these resource gaps, establish food
security for the island, and actively work toward Guam's goal of
building regional sustainability, I humbly request the Committee
prioritize fully funding programs that support the construction of a
slaughterhouse and fumigator facility in rural areas and the
territories. The lack of a fumigator facility to verify the safety and
pest-free quality of produce hinders the importation of goods from our
U.S.-allied neighbors and prevents the establishment of a circular
economy partnership. Without a slaughterhouse to facilitate meeting the
standard of livestock-related consumption presented by our island and
region, both agricultural practitioners and consumers from Guam are
denied the opportunity of participating in a system of local sourcing
widely available to Americans across the continental United States. I
have also requested funding for the revitalization of Guam's
fishermen's co-op to the House Appropriations Committee. Without a
revitalized fishermen's co-op facility, Guam is unable to
comprehensively access and capitalize on the numerous ocean resources
readily available to our island and throughout the Pacific.
As a body whose living mission has been directed towards keeping
our country safe, secure, and moving forward through practical
agricultural tools, we understand that our existing requests present
key areas of interest for this Committee. Although they may be in other
committees of jurisdiction, we humbly request for the support of all
Members of this Committee in order to see things through in the
interests of our country and the Territory of Guam.
Your work importantly highlights the fundamental relationship which
exists between food and the quality of life for all Americans, and it
is my hope that your advocacy assists in providing us the opportunity
to meaningfully improve the lives and circumstances of the people of
Guam through these projects. By supporting our efforts to secure
funding for the construction of a fumigator facility, slaughterhouse,
and revitalized fishermen's co-op facility, you will partake in the
work of establishing systems and structures that will respond to the
unique needs of our community and effectively uplift them as a whole.
Thank you again for the opportunity to present our needs before
this Committee, and we look forward to working with you to enhancing
the quality of life for our Americans living in the territory of Guam.
[attachment]
Positive Peace and Food Security in Guam
Christie Nicoson, Rotary Peace Fellow, Uppsala University Rotary Peace
Center

November 2016
Abstract
Worldwide, about one in nine people are undernourished. They are
food-insecure, or unable to have sustained access to enough nutritious
food. Food insecurity can contribute to instability or violence.
Meanwhile, food security can boost a community's resilience and
contribute to positive peace, or the greater well-being of society
beyond an absence of violence.
The Pacific region faces particular obstacles to achieving food
security, including a growing population, effects of climate change,
and governance struggles. This case study explores food security in
Guam and aims to contribute to a more holistic understanding of food
security there. Interviews conducted with people involved in different
types of local food initiatives--farmers, teachers, vendors, and
activists--seek to highlight motivations for, challenges, and impact of
local food on the food security situation. Concluding recommendations
explore how strengthening local food initiatives can contribute to
positive peace on the island, enhancing the well-being of society as a
whole.
Table of Contents
Executive summary and key recommendations
Acknowledgements
1. Introduction
2. Context

2.1 History of Guam and globalization
2.2 Food security, conflict, and peace

2.2.1 Food and conflict
2.2.2 Food and peace

2.3 Food security in the Pacific
2.4 Food security in Guam

2.4.1 Availability and access
2.4.2 Utilization
2.4.3 Stability

3. Case study: local food initiatives in Guam

3.1 Methodology

3.1.1 Definitions
3.1.2 Research design and parameters

3.2 Research findings

3.2.1 Trends across and between groups
3.2.2 Potential for positive peace
3.2.3 Further areas for exploration

4. Limitations
5. Recommendations
6. Conclusion

References
Executive summary and key recommendations
According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations, about 795 million people worldwide are undernourished.\1\
There are significant challenges for achieving food security, which
exists ``when all people, at all times, have physical, social, and
economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their
dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life.''
\2\ Availability, access, utilization, and stability make up the four
key pillars of food security. Food insecurity may contribute to the
likelihood of instability or violence,\3\ while food security can
contribute to a community's resilience and to well-being at the
national, community, household, and individual levels.\4\ The ability
of people to have sufficient food contributes to positive peace, or the
greater well-being of society beyond an absence of violence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,
International Fund for Agricultural Development, and World Food
Programme, ``The State of Food Insecurity in the World. Meeting the
2015 International Hunger Targets: Taking Stock of Uneven Progress''
(Rome, 2015), http://www.fao.org/hunger/en/:8.
\2\ Anders Jagerskog and Ashok Swain, Emerging Security Threats in
the Middle East: The Impact of Climate Change and Globalization
(London: Rowman & Littlefield, 2016): 39.
\3\ Emmy Simmons, ``Harvesting Peace: Food Security, Conflict, and
Cooperation,'' Environmental Change and Security Program Report
(Washington, D.C.: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars,
2013): 19-22.
\4\ Clemens Breisinger, et al., ``Building Resilience for Food and
Nutrition Security,'' in International Food Policy Research Institute,
2014: 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The many islands and nations that make up the Pacific region face
particular obstacles to achieving food security. Population, climate
change, and strong governance have been identified as primary concerns.
On the Pacific island of Guam, other challenges include high food
prices, disproportionate amounts of imported food, and vulnerability to
impacts of climate change and weather patterns. Food availability in
Guam is largely contingent on conditions favorable to imports,
including in policy, weather, and trade. Furthermore, lack of
accessible nutritious food options and widespread preference for diets
high in processed foods contribute to a public health crisis.
This study aims to gather anecdotal evidence about food security in
Guam. It draws on existing data in order to understand a holistic view
of the island's food security situation and compiles interviews with
individuals involved in a number of local food initiatives, including
organizations, farmers, educators, and vendors who are working to
support local farmers and strengthen the presence of local food in
people's shopping habits and diets. Specifically, this study examines
food security in relation to Guam's prospects for positive peace. The
case study is designed to highlight the goals, impacts, and challenges
for local food initiatives in Guam so as to better understand food
security in the context of positive peace.
Key findings from this case study show that local food initiatives
are mostly focused on health, market conditions, and weather events.
Goals and impacts as stated in interviews often reflect focus on
improving health as well as contributing to import substitution or
strengthening the local economy. Challenges include high costs for
farmers, which make sales of local food less competitive with imported
goods, and struggles with production due to high incidence of pests and
weather events.
Recommendations of this study include the following actions to
improve food security prospects in Guam:

1. Enhanced understanding of the situation--Effective action around
food security requires accurate and updated information.
Studies, data collection, and analysis should not only be
continued, but should increasingly feature collaboration
between various community stakeholders. This would
contribute to the availability of practical knowledge to
better meet the needs of the community.

2. Expanded education on nutrition--Increased public awareness and
understanding around basic nutrition and the links between
diet and health are crucial to improving food security.
Integrating knowledge and action around health and local
food through nutrition would benefit people's well-being
and support local agriculture.

3. Encouraging young farmers--Education in schools and training
programs to introduce young people to the farming industry
and allow related practical experience are important steps
toward increasing the number of local farmers and shifting
the farmer demographic to include a younger population.
This will also facilitate building continuity of skills and
productivity and pass on local knowledge, both of which are
increasingly important as the current farming population
ages.

4. Market expansion--Opportunities for farmers to expand to
supplying other sectors beyond grocery stores and farmers'
markets should be considered and could include contracts or
arrangements with the tourism and military industries. The
demands generated from these industries could support
farmers, boosting the local food environment and economy.

5. Improved communication and coordination--Stronger channels of
communication that facilitate sharing of knowledge, data,
and resources between academics, policy makers, nonprofits,
business, farmers, and other interested groups in Guam
would enhance opportunities available to individual groups
and the collective of local food initiatives.

6. Targeted food accessibility programs--Information should be
gathered to assess which individuals and groups are in more
vulnerable situations regarding food security. This
information could inform programming to ensure that
assistance programs do not reinforce harmful power
structures and that healthy food is equitably accessible.
Acknowledgements
I owe many thanks the individuals in Guam who welcomed me and made
this project possible. I am indebted to those who so willingly shared
their knowledge and experiences.
I owe special gratitude to those groups and individuals who
supported this study and are doing tremendous work in support of local
food in Guam. I would like to thank Anthony Ada, Jesse Bamba, Robert
Barber, Peter Barcinas, Cassie Brady, Colleen Cabedo, Sylvia Frain,
Thalia Gange, Rebekah Garrison, Stephanie Herring, Michael Limtiaco,
Steve Martinez, Denise Mendiola-Hertslet, Melanie Mendiola, Tiara
Na'puti, Jessica Nangauta, Sabina Perez, Gena Rojas, Jesse Rosario,
Marilyn Salas, Bernard Watson, Earnie Wustig, Rotary Club of Tumon Bay,
Rotary Club of Northern Guam, Sunrise Rotary Club, Rotary E-Club of
Pago Bay, and the others who generously shared their time and
experience with me.
I am grateful to Rotary International and the faculty at Uppsala
University for supporting my studies and encouraging me in this
research. Special thanks go to Minneapolis University Rotary Club,
Rotary Districts 2350 and 5950, and Uppsala University Rotary Peace
Center.
The views in this report are my own and do not represent those of
the aforementioned groups or individuals. Any mistakes or errors are my
own.
1. Introduction
More than just providing sustenance, food brings people together,
ties them to a time and place, forms culture, and shapes tradition. In
modern history, humans have advanced agricultural practices, improved
technology, and shaped an increasingly connected global market. Yet
despite this progress, millions of people are unable to fulfill their
basic food needs. Although food is recognized internationally as among
the most basic rights guaranteed to all people, nearly 795 million
people, one in nine people worldwide, do not have enough food.\5\
Addressing this need is a matter of addressing adequate production and
distribution and ensuring food security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,
International Fund for Agricultural Development, and World Food
Programme, ``The State of Food Insecurity in the World. Meeting the
2015 International Hunger Targets: Taking Stock of Uneven Progress'':
8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Food security is defined by the Food and Agriculture Organization
of the United Nations as existing ``when all people, at all times, have
physical, social, and economic access to sufficient, safe and
nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an
active and healthy life.'' \6\ Food security is generally considered to
have four key components: availability, access, utilization, and
stability. These comprise a picture of food that not only includes food
sources, but also equitable distribution of food, people's knowledge of
good nutrition, and the ability to sustain these traits over time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Jagerskog and Swain, Emerging Security Threats in the Middle
East: The Impact of Climate Change and Globalization: 39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This research aims to highlight how food security is connected to
peace. The following case study report is an analysis of the food
security situation in Guam. An unincorporated territory of the United
States, Guam hosts multiple U.S. military bases and the island itself
has not been actively involved in war since World War II, during which
time the Japanese invaded the island and the U.S. fought to regain
control. Guam is currently experiencing negative peace, that is, an
absence of conflict. However, simply viewing peace as a lack of
violence misses key components that make up the greater well-being of a
society. There is more to peace than not fighting. Moving to look
beyond the absence of violence allows a more dynamic picture of the
true state of well-being. ``Positive peace,'' therefore, is a more
useful term as it aims to understand the degree to which people are
able to meet their needs and foster sustained peace. Positive peace is
defined as ``peace that exceeds the absence of violence, as
characterized by the presence of justice, fairness, well-being in
individual and group interactions.'' \7\ By examining different aspects
of positive peace, it is possible to understand how food security may
be an important component of this sustained well-being of society.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Johan Galtung and International Peace Research Institute, Oslo,
Peace by Peaceful Means: Peace and Conflict, Development and
Civilization, vol. 14, Peace and Conflict, Development and Civilization
(London: GB: SAGE Publications Ltd, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This report will begin in Section 2 with a discussion of how food
security is related to peace and situate these topics regionally in the
Pacific and locally in Guam. Section 3 will explain the research
methodology used, highlight the results of a multiple-case study
conducted in Guam, and provide a perspective of positive peace on the
island. After discussing limitations, the report concludes with
recommendations and opportunities for future work.
2. Context
2.1 History of Guam and globalization
Guam, or Guahan in Chamorro, is a unique and interesting case for
food security, particularly in light of the dramatic changes of
globalization and the increased role of the military against a backdrop
of colonialism. The legacies of colonization and militarization
continue to profoundly affect the current situation in Guam.
Guam, located in the north Pacific, is the largest and southernmost
island of the Mariana Islands in Micronesia. Scholars estimate that
migration to the Pacific Islands took place between 2,000 B.C. and 500
A.D. Chamorros, Guam's indigenous peoples, are thought to have first
settled the island during this time.\8\ Following Portuguese explorer
Ferdinand Magellan's landing in Guam in 1521, the Spanish claimed Guam
in 1565 and colonized the island, spreading Christianity through
Catholic missionaries and using the island to benefit Spanish
commerce.\9\ The Spanish occupied Guam for over 300 years, despite
occasional conflicts and rebellion with Chamorros.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Paul Carano and Pedro C. Sanchez, A Complete History of Guam,
9th ed. (Rutland and Tokyo: Charles E. Tuttle Company, 1982): 16-17.
\9\ Ibid, 39, 44; 62.
\10\ Ibid: 61-87.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. captured Guam during the Spanish-American War, and the
Spanish granted them the island through the Treaty of Paris in
1898.\11\ During World War II, the Japanese occupied Guam for 31
months. During this time, the Japanese separated indigenous Chamorro
families and subjected the people to newly imposed cultural and
education systems, forced labor, incarceration, torture, concentration
camps, and execution.\12\ This occupation is thought to have resulted
in the killing of as much as ten percent of Guam's population.\13\ The
U.S. recaptured the island in 1944.\14\ In 1950, the Guam Organic Act
established Guam as an unincorporated organized territory of the U.S.,
making it one of the world's current seventeen non-self-governing
territories classified by the United Nations and subject to the
decolonization process.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Robert F. Rogers, Destiny's Landfall: A History of Guam
(Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1995).
\12\ Carano and Sanchez, A Complete History of Guam: 267-290.
\13\ Werner Gruhl, Imperial Japan's World War Two, 1931-1945
(Transaction Publishers, 2007).
\14\ Carano and Sanchez, A Complete History of Guam: 293-309.
\15\ United Nations General Assembly, ``Information from Non-Self
Governing Territories Transmitted under Article 73e of the Charter of
the United Nations, Report of the Secretary-General'' (United Nations,
2015), http://www.un.org/en/events/nonselfgoverning/
nonselfgoverning.shtml.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Post-War period that followed brought many changes to the
island: per capita incomes increased and modern shopping centers,
churches, and infrastructure were constructed. Guam also made strides
toward greater self-governance.\16\ A growing population has also
impacted current affairs in Guam. Population growth rates continue to
increase annually. The population growth rate between 1990 and 2000 was
1.4 percent.\17\ The 2010 Census counted a population of 159,358
people, a 2.9 percent growth rate from 2000.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Carano and Sanchez, A Complete History of Guam: 396-398.
\17\ Bureau of Statistics and Plans, ``Guam's Facts and Figures at
a Glance 2013'' (Hagatna: Office of the Governor of Guam, 2014).
\18\ United States Census Bureau, ``Guam Demographic Profile
Summary File: 2010 Census of Population and Housing,'' March 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These changes have had other profound effects in Guam's
development. Tourism has grown to become a major economic sector.
According to Guam Visitors Bureau (GVB), tourism in Guam generates $1.4
billion annually. The sector accounts for 60 percent of Guam's business
revenue each year and employs 31 percent of the island's non-Federal
workers. The majority of visitors come from East Asia: 71 percent from
Japan, with growing numbers from Korea and Taiwan. In 2012, there were
over 1.3 million arrivals and projections for 2020 forecast two million
visitors.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Guam Visitors Bureau, ``Vision 2020'' (Tumon: Guam Visitors
Bureau, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another major economic sector is the U.S. military, which has come
to dominate the island both in physical and economic presence. The
island economy is heavily dependent on the U.S. military \20\ and 28
percent, or roughly \1/3\, of the landmass is occupied by the military,
as shown in Figure 1.\21\ The military is a major employer, and
recruitment programs start in high school. Guam's enlistment rate is
among the highest in the U.S. In 2007, it reportedly ranked first among
54 states and territories in recruiting success in the Army National
Guard.\22\ Though there are many factors contributing to this, the
heavy involvement with the military can be partly attributed to the
experience of World War II that persists in living memory, as well as
to economic necessity. In 2010, 25 percent of the population was
considered poor.\23\ Joining the military provides not only income, but
also access to the military's base infrastructure, including hospitals,
schools, and grocery stores with more affordable rates than most public
facilities. According to a recent news article, Guam currently hosts
six thousand military personnel and an expansion plan set for 2022
would bring an additional 5,000 marines and 1,300 dependents.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Natividad and Gwyn Kirk, ``Fortress Guam: Resistance to the US
Military Mega-Buildup,'' The Asia-Pacific Journal, Japan Focus, 8, no.
19 (May 2010): 4.
\21\ John Letman, ``Proposed US Military Buildup on Guam Angers
Locals Who Liken It to Colonization,'' The Guardian, August 1, 2016.
\22\ Natividad and Kirk, ``Fortress Guam: Resistance to the US
Military Mega-Buildup'': 5.
\23\ Ibid.
\24\ Letman, ``Proposed US Military Buildup on Guam Angers Locals
Who Liken It to Colonization.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 1: Military Presence in Guam

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

(Map: The Guardian, 2016).

Though the people in Guam are U.S. citizens, they are denied a vote
in presidential elections and lack full political representation in
U.S. Congress. Guam is allowed to elect a ``delegate,'' or a nonvoting
Member, to the U.S. House of Representatives.\25\ The political status
also affects the economy. For instance, the Merchant Marine Act of 1920
(P.L. 66-261), more commonly known as the Jones Act, regulates commerce
by requiring that all goods or passengers transferred on ships between
U.S. ports--like Guam--must be carried on U.S.-flag ships that are
constructed in the U.S., owned by U.S. citizens, and crewed by U.S.
citizens and U.S. permanent residents.\26\ The Jones Act is said to be
important to supporting economic interests of the U.S. shipping
industry \27\ and protecting national security.\28\ However, the Act
severely limits the goods that can be brought into the country. The
constricted nature of the market imposes prices on the people of Guam
that far exceed that of not only those on the continent but also
neighboring islands, as explained later in this report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ United States House of Representatives, 48 U.S.C. Ch. 16:
Delegates to Congress, Title 48--Territories and Insular Possessions,
Title VII, 712, 122 Stat. 868, vol. 48 U.S.C. 1752, 2008.
\26\ United States Senate, Merchant Marine Act, 41 Stat. 988, 1920.
\27\ Chris Jennewein, ``Hunter Named `Champion of Maritime' For
Support of Shipbuilding,'' Times of SanDiego, September 30, 2015,
http://timesofsandiego.com/politics/2015/09/30/hunter-named-champion-
of-maritime-for-support-of-shipbuilding/.
\28\ Daniel Goure, ``The Jones Act and Homeland Security in the
21st Century'' (The Lexington Institute, July 2016), http://
lexingtoninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Jones-Act-and-
Homeland-Security.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.2 Food security, conflict, and peace
2.2.1 Food and conflict
Researchers with the International Food Policy Research Institute
state ``most wars of the late 20th century and early 21st century are
`food wars,' meaning food is used as a weapon, food systems are
destroyed in the course of conflict, and food insecurity persists as a
legacy of conflict.'' \29\ The connection between food and conflict is
not surprising. Food is a basic necessity and scarcity or threats to
access have serious repercussions on peoples' lives. The connection
works both ways: food insecurity can be both a cause and consequence of
conflict.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Ellen Messer and Marc J. Cohen, ``Conflict, Food Insecurity,
and Globalization,'' International Food Policy Research Institute, May
2006: 1-45.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conflict may cause food insecurity in a number of ways, affecting
all four aspects of food security: availability, access, utilization,
and stability. Fundamentality, conflict affects availability of food
through:

1. Disruption of food production;

2. Interruption of food delivery in both markets and humanitarian
assistance;

3. Harm to investment in food systems by diverting funds; or

4. Destruction of food and related assets, such as equipment,
livestock, seeds, and food stocks, harming both immediate
and future food-production capabilities.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Simmons, ``Harvesting Peace: Food Security, Conflict, and
Cooperation.''

As this list demonstrates, violence or unrest can disrupt
production and market flows or destroy infrastructure that is crucial
to the food system. People may be prompted to take preventative action
in the face of such difficulties, withholding funds or resources they
might otherwise invest in food and agriculture. These diminishing
investments or withdrawal from the sector can reduce household income
as well as food availability and accessibility.\31\ In addition to
affecting availability, conflict also disrupts and impacts access,
utility, and stability of food systems, thus contributing to greater
food insecurity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Barrett, ``Food or Consequences: Food Security and Its
Implications for Global Sociopolitical Stability'': 9-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Food security can also play a role in triggering conflict. Food can
contribute to conflict through causing or perpetuating:

1. Extreme and sudden rises in food prices, as seen in food
protests, riots, and other forms of unrest;

2. Competition for scarce resources, such as water, necessary for
food production;

3. Inequalities, particularly in resource-rich countries;

4. Incentives for people to join rebel groups in order to secure
food or other resources for themselves or their families;
or

5. Instability that sustains conflicts.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Simmons, ``Harvesting Peace: Food Security, Conflict, and
Cooperation:'' 19-22.

Potential for conflict is higher when inequalities or environmental
degradation, or a combination of the two, cause ``extreme
marginalization of large segments of the population.'' \33\ Some
research suggests that such a relationship between food insecurity and
conflict is conditioned by socioeconomic positioning. Unrest as a
response to spikes in food prices most often occurs among more affluent
groups, less so among rural, poor, or marginalized populations.
Notably, food-insecure communities do not always resort to violence.
Such instances of conflict are more common when groups are not overly
repressed and are organized sufficiently, such as through strong
political leadership.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Messer and Cohen, ``Conflict, Food Insecurity, and
Globalization'': 15.
\34\ Messer and Cohen, ``Conflict, Food Insecurity, and
Globalization.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although food is not found to be a direct cause of conflict, it is
certainly an aggravating factor. Other factors, such as high
unemployment, rapid urbanization, or government instability also
contribute to vulnerability and could impact both food insecurity and
conflict. Although a causal link is not possible to prove at this point
between food and conflict, it is important to note that the
relationship between the two can be observed both in research and as
experienced by people in their daily lives.
2.2.2 Food and peace
Previous findings show that food, as essential to human life, is a
potential contributor to conflict. Likewise, it can be a powerful means
to promote peace. When food is approached with a civic perspective, it
stands to be a force for fostering resiliency and sustainable positive
peace.
Resilience is defined as a country or household's ability to
``prevent, anticipate, prepare for, cope with, and recover from
conflicts,'' such that they are better able to grow after a conflict,
not simply survive one.\35\ This enables a community to support itself
in a way that will foster greater well-being and positive peace, such
as through support for and promotion of adequate education, health
care, and governing institutions. Figure 2 illustrates
interdependencies of food security, conflict, and resiliency. This
framework takes national food security as the ``availability'' pillar--
dependent on a country's ability to provide adequate food for all
people. National-level food security depends on a country's
macroeconomic stability, sector policies, and governance. This entails
not only an economic equality dimension, but also the ability of
citizens to actively participate in the governing process, and for
people to equitably access necessary services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Breisinger, et al., ``Building Resilience for Food and
Nutrition Security'': 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 2: The conflict resiliency-food security framework

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

(Image: Breisinger, 2014).

Household food security, meanwhile, here supports the ``access''
and ``utilization'' components of the term, in line with the FAO
definition of food security that ``all people, at all times, have
physical, social, and economic access to sufficient, safe and
nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an
active and healthy life.'' \36\ Resiliency at this level can be built
with this component that security at the national level, or
availability, does not necessarily equate to food-secure households or
individuals. That is, simply because food is available, does not
necessarily mean that all people will have equitable access to it or be
able to use food in the best or most appropriate way. Therefore,
household and individual resiliency is just as crucial as resiliency at
the national level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Jagerskog and Swain, Emerging Security Threats in the Middle
East: The Impact of Climate Change and Globalization: 39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.3 Food security in the Pacific
Traditionally, Guam and other Pacific islands were self-sufficient.
They achieved food security through sustainable agriculture, fishing,
and harvesting local produce. Increasingly, imports have provided for
the majority of food needs, though often with lower quality substitutes
for locally grown and produced foods.\37\ This, along with many other
inter-related factors, affects the state of food security. Figure 3
presents a model for the various components and influencing factors of
food security. These sectors, groups, and circumstances represent the
main impacts on food supply and demand, affecting overall food
security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Food Secure Pacific Working Group, ``Towards a Food Secure
Pacific. Framework for Action on Food Security in the Pacific: 2011-
2015'' (Port Vila, 2010): 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 3: Conceptual model of food security in the Pacific

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

(Image: Food Secure Pacific Working Group, 2010).

Food security has increasingly been recognized as a challenge for
the Pacific region. Leaders at the 39th Pacific Islands Forum in 2008
acknowledged ``the high importance of food security as an emerging
issue which poses challenges for the future well-being of people across
the region'' and urged high political commitment, calling on
governments to take ``immediate action to address food security issues
nationally and, where possible, regionally through a range of measures
across key sectors such as agriculture, fisheries, trade and
transport.'' \38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expanding on this model, the 2010 Pacific Food Summit, highlighted
three factors as specific challenges for food security in the Pacific
region: population, climate change, and governance. The Pacific Food
Summit first addressed the challenge posed by population, highlighting
the fact that in 2010 there were ten million people living in the
region, half of who live in urban areas, with a growth rate of four
percent a year. It was also noted that families spend a significant
portion of their income, between 39-50 percent, on food.\39\ Climate
change poses a significant challenge to food security, as fisheries and
farmland have been and will continue to be impacted. Changes in
precipitation patterns, increased disease vectors, and loss of land all
have immediate impacts on agricultural production and contribute to
decreased crop biodiversity.\40\ In addition, the World Health
Organization (WHO) notes that governments will face increasingly
difficult demands of managing population and climate challenges
alongside while economic growth, political stability, and self-
sufficiency.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ Western Pacific Region, World Health Organization, ``Pacific
Food Summit,'' Meeting Report (Port Vila: World Health Organization,
April 2010): 3.
\40\ John Campbell and Olivia Warrick, ``Climate Change and
Migration Issues in the Pacific'' (United Nations Economic and Social
Commission for Asia and the Pacific, Pacific Office, August 2014): 2.
\41\ World Health Organization, ``Pacific Food Summit.'' 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alongside these factors, other trends emerge across the Pacific.
Notably, there is an increased consumption of imported foods, both as a
product and consequence of changing global food systems. An
increasingly urban population has contributed to shifting societal
diets toward imported and less nutritious food. The WHO also finds
consistent health trends across the Pacific: 70 percent of people in
the region do not consume the recommended daily servings of fruit and
vegetables, and obesity and diabetes rates have risen to some of the
highest in the world.\42\ These trends of consuming more imported food
and increased health risks are central to food security issues
throughout the region.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ Ibid: 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.4 Food security in Guam
In addition to the food security trends demonstrated to exist
throughout the Pacific, the food security situation in Guam is
particularly impacted by a number of highly context-specific factors.
Among these factors is Guam's political status, which has contributed
to the increase of cheap imported food. Imports have largely created a
situation where there is enough to eat--sufficient food availability--
but insufficient nutritional value. Further, adequate access and
utilization components of food security are lacking in Guam. Food
prices, the spread of quality nutritious food, the geographic location
of major supermarkets, food assistance programs, and diets and popular
consumption patterns contribute to a larger picture of poor access and
weak utilization of healthy food. Climate and weather events, including
effects of climate change, affect the stabilization element of food
security in Guam.
2.4.1 Availability and access
There is no immediate shortage of food in Guam. During regular
times, grocery stores are well stocked and there are a variety of
options for purchasing food. Markets range from warehouse style stores
and supermarkets to `mom and pop shops', farmers' markets, and roadside
produce stands (pictured: Food availability in Guam). Food products
vary between locally grown and imported, processed foods.
Imports constitute approximately 90 percent of the food in Guam.
According to recent data from the Government of Guam's Bureau of
Statistics and Plans, food data for the 3 year period from 2011 to
2013, estimated that annual food imports in Guam consisted of $8.25
million in vegetables and fruits; $41 million chicken, pork, and beef;
and $14 million fish and seafood.\43\ This figure includes commodities
for resale; it does not include military, government, promotion, or
personal items. The majority of all imports (of food and non-alcoholic
beverage products and commodities) are from the United States, followed
by Japan.\44\ In 2013, total imports comprised 68.1 percent and 57.7
percent of all surface and air cargo respectively, while exports made
up 11.8 percent of surface cargo and 19.9 percent of air cargo.\45\
These figures show that import commodities largely outweigh exports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ Gena Rojas, Fred Schumann, and Maria Claret M. Ruane, ``Guam
Farmer Survey: February-April 2014,'' PCEI Technical Report (Pacific
Center for Economic Initiatives, University of Guam, May 2014).
\44\ Lorileet T. Crisostomo and Albert M. Perez, ``Guam Import
Data,'' External Trade Section (Hagatna: Bureau of Statistics and
Plans, December 2014).
\45\ Bureau of Statistics and Plans, ``Guam's Facts and Figures at
a Glance 2013.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Food availability in Guam

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

In order clockwise:

(1) Locally grown produce sold by the organization Farm to
Table
Guam at the Mangilao Night Market;

(2) a produce stand at the Saturday morning Dededo
Farmers' Mar-
ket;

(3) canned goods at a warehouse grocery store; and

(4) the grocery section in a gas station market store.

Despite high food import figures, a pilot study found that grocery
stores in Guam lacked nutritious products. Based on the U.S. Department
of Agriculture's Thrifty Food Plan, a majority of stores lacked an
average of five of twelve categories of nutritious foods, and only 12
percent of stores fulfilled eleven or more categories.\46\ SNAP
(Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) is one of the largest
national programs to grant food benefits based on individual and
household needs. The average benefit granted to individuals in Guam in
2014 was $191.08, while the average for the U.S. was $125.01. Guam
ranks second highest in the country, after Hawaii, where the average
benefit amount was at $225.38. The household averages were $443.02 in
Hawaii and $583.75 in Guam.\47\ Comparing prices for food, the pilot
study found that food in Guam was 15 percent more expensive than in
Hawaii and 49 percent higher than in the continental U.S.\48\ In 2013,
the average income per person in Guam was $30,500,\49\ while the U.S.
average was $54,000.\50\ Given the relatively low per capita GDP and
high prices of food, it can be difficult for people to regularly access
healthy food.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ The Thrift Food Plan (TFP) is a measurement of the cost of
nutritious diets. The Plan serves as the basis for the U.S. food
assistance program allotments, SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program).
\47\ Food and Nutrition Service, ``Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program: State Activity Report, Fiscal Year 2014,'' State
Activity Report (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Program
Accountability and Administration Division, United States Department of
Agriculture, October 2015), www.fns.usda.gov/pd/snapmain.html.
\48\ Rojas, Schumann, and Ruane, ``Guam Farmer Survey: February-
April 2014.''
\49\ Central Intelligence Agency, ``United States,'' Government,
The World Factbook, accessed September 10, 2016, https://www.cia.gov/
library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html.
\50\ Central Intelligence Agency, ``United States,'' Government,
The World Factbook, accessed September 10, 2016, https://www.cia.gov/
library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not only is the average food assistance benefit higher in Guam; a
higher portion of the population depends on the assistance program.
Comparing U.S. Census data and SNAP reports from 2014, Washington, D.C.
had the highest percentage in the continental U.S., with approximately
22 percent of the population on food assistance, while an estimated 29
percent were on food assistance in Guam.\51\ Furthermore, although food
assistance benefits are accepted at some farmers' markets in Guam,
anecdotal evidence shows that many SNAP beneficiaries purchase mainly
nonperishable food items in large quantities. This means families
dependent on food assistance purchase less fresh, healthy produce and
more imported, processed foods, which affects their health. Although
there are adequate amounts of food on the island, the nutritional
wealth is not equitably distributed, and many households and
individuals depend on government assistance to purchase basic food
items. In addition to the numbers for food assistance and per capita
GDP, recent data shows at least 1,745 homeless people in Guam. Over 400
of these are Chamorro and over 600 come from other islands in the
Federated States of Micronesia.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ Food and Nutrition Service, ``Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program: State Activity Report, Fiscal Year 2014.''
\52\ Bureau of Statistics and Plans, ``Guam Statistical Yearbook
2014'' (Hagatna: Office of the Governor of Guam, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimating the amount of local food produced in Guam is a difficult
task. The primary challenge involves counting the farms, followed
thereafter by the fact that not all farms keep detailed records of
their harvests. Censuses of agriculture collected by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture provide at least a general picture of farms
in Guam. The Census defines a farm as any place ``from which $1,000 or
more of agricultural products were produced and sold, or normally would
have been sold, during a 12 month period.'' In 1993, the definition was
set at $100. The 1940 Census found 2,529 farms. The 1998 Census found
201 farms, approximately 65 percent of which were operated by
individuals over 55 years of age,\53\ and the Census taken in 2014
totaled only 104.\54\ These numbers are subject to some speculation, as
it is often acknowledged that many farms go unaccounted for due to
irregular record keeping, informal set-ups, and inconsistent
communication. However, the numbers do reflect a real trend in the
number of farms declining. Furthermore, the farmer population is
growing older, as existing farmers age and fewer young farmers take
their place. Further, the Guam Farmer Survey conducted by researchers
at the University of Guam estimates that 64.62 percent of farmers gave
unsold produce away, 3.08 percent threw it away, and 29.23 percent used
it for personal consumption, animal feed, or other uses.\55\ These
findings show that there is great potential for increased food sales
through, for example, produce marketing or production of value-added
commodities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural
Statistics Service, and Bureau of Statistics and Plans, Government of
Guam, ``1998 Census of Agriculture: Guam,'' Census, (October 2003).
\54\ Rojas, Schumann, and Ruane, ``Guam Farmer Survey: February-
April 2014.''
\55\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.4.2 Utilization
The utilization component of food security refers to whether people
have the knowledge and means necessary for accessing and consuming a
diet that will enable them to lead a healthy and productive life.\56\
Health challenges in Guam have grown significantly in recent history.
The Government of Guam Department of Public Health and Social Services
(DPHSS) reports that Guam is facing a health crisis due to high rates
of non-communicable diseases. The DPHSS and Non-Communicable Disease
Consortium identify the pathway to non-communicable diseases as
beginning with underlying causes of globalization, urbanization, and an
aging population; aggravated by factors including an unhealthy diet;
contributing to risk factors of obesity and high blood pressure; and
leading to chronic diseases.\57\ Heart disease, malignant neoplasms
(cancers), cerebrovascular disease (such as stroke or hypertension),
diabetes, and septicemia (such as life-threatening infections) made up
five of the top six leading causes of death in 2014.\58\ Life-style
behaviors, including diet, have led to alarming increases in rates of
diabetes, cancer, obesity, heart attacks, and strokes.\59\ These
diseases cause 58.8 percent of the overall death rate, which is 8.5
percent higher than that of the United States, as shown in Table 1.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ Simmons, ``Harvesting Peace: Food Security, Conflict, and
Cooperation.''
\57\ Government of Guam Department of Public Health and Social
Services and Non-Communicable Disease Consortium, ``Guam Non-
Communicable Disease Strategic Plan 2014-2018,'' Live Healthy Guam
(Mangilao: Non-Communicable Disease Consortium, December 2013).
\58\ Bureau of Statistics and Plans, ``Guam Statistical Yearbook
2014.''
\59\ V. Peter Roberto, Department of Health and Social Services,
quoted in Western Pacific Region World Health Organization, ``Pacific
Food Summit,'' Meeting Report (Port Vila: World Health Organization,
April 2010).
\60\ Office of the Governor of Guam, ``Health Revolution.''

Table 1: Age-Adjusted NCD Death Rates per 100,000 Population, Guam and
the United States, 2010 \61\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guam United States
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deaths, all causes 810.6 747.0
\61\ Government of Guam
Department of Public Health and
Social Services and Non-
Communicable Disease
Consortium, ``Guam Non-
Communicable Disease Strategic
Plan 2014-2018.''
Heart disease 254.9 179.1
Cancer 133.6 172.8
Cerebrovascular disease/stroke 71.6 39.1
Diabetes 37.7 20.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------

This data shows that people in Guam die from life-style and
preventable diseases such as hypertension, strokes, heart disease, and
diabetes at much greater rates than people in the continental U.S.
Diets in Guam promote obesity, another contributing factor to these
diseases, through high occurrence of fast food, processed food, high
sugar, salt, trans fat, and highly saturated foods. In 2012, 32.4
percent and 29.1 percent of people in Guam were considered to be
overweight and obese, respectively.\62\ In particular, Guam childhood
obesity rates are about 23 percent, compared with 17 percent in the
U.S.\63\ This is partly attributed to the fact that in 2009, only about
24 percent of people in Guam ate adequate servings of fruits and
vegetables daily.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ Office of the Governor of Guam, ``Health Revolution.''
\63\ Yvette C. Paulino, et al., ``Overweight and Obesity Prevalence
among Public School Children in Guam,'' Journal of Health Care for the
Poor and Underserved 26, no. 2 (May 2015): 53-62.
\64\ Office of the Governor of Guam, ``Health Revolution.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, even produce that is purchased at local grocery stores
may lack nutritional value. Imported produce, which constitutes the
majority of food sold in grocery stores in Guam, is harvested before it
is fully ripe and is often ripened using gassing or other unnatural
techniques to ensure it lasts during the shipping process and holds a
shelf-life in stores.
Lifestyle is an important component in considering the utilization
and health crisis in Guam. Food sharing has been and continues to be an
important component of social gatherings in Guam, particularly at
fiestas. Fiestas, barbeques, and other similar events take place nearly
every weekend in many locations throughout Guam. These events are an
opportunity for family and community members to gather or celebrate
special occasions, and where food is prepared in abundance. A typical
menu includes meat and fish, rice, and cakes, among other dishes. A
recent study on the nutritional composition of fiestas found the fiesta
menu presented high availability of food but a nutritional imbalance.
The availability of food is credited to a long tradition of reciprocal
behavior in Guam, extending from early Chamorro society and exemplified
by the exchanging of food dishes and goods today, especially at
fiestas. Though there is plenty of food at fiestas and other events,
there is little variety or nutritional content. Most foods at fiestas
were found to be high in energy, fat, and saturated fat.\65\ The shift
away from traditional foods such as breadfruit, taro, yams, and seafood
toward lower quality imported food and cooking methods high in fat
value affect the nutritious intake and health of many in Guam.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ Paulino, et al., ``Overweight and Obesity Prevalence among
Public School Children in Guam'': 233-44.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.4.3 Stability
Finally, the fourth component of food security is stability,
whether conditions of access, availability, and utilization can be
sustained over time. One of the factors impacting stability in Guam is
the climate. Currently, the major factor associated with climate
affecting food is pest management. The climate in Guam is well suited
to many types of pests and invasive species that pose a threat to
crops, affecting farmers' livelihoods and food production. Examples
vary from the Ageratum yellow vein virus (AYVV) that infected tomato
plants in northern Guam around 2007, to the brown tree snake that
arrived more than 60 years ago and effectively led to the extinction of
nearly every native bird species in Guam and is projected to cause
changes in tree distributions and reductions in native trees as well as
power outages.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ Vince Stricherz, ``Brown Tree Snake Could Mean Guam Will Lose
More than Its Birds,'' UW Today, August 21, 2008, http://
www.washington.edu/news/2008/08/21/brown-tree-snake-could-mean-guam-
will-lose-more-than-its-birds-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, climate change is affecting weather patterns and sea
levels in the Pacific. Climate change will bring more frequent and
intense extreme weather events and alter water and land resources, such
as suitable farmland, fresh water availability, and fisheries.
Throughout the Pacific, climate change is expected to contribute to an
increase in tropical cyclone speed by up to 20 percent; variation in
rainfall, storm and extreme weather event-related damage or destruction
of farmland; as well as inundation of coasts, freshwater salinization,
shifting fisheries, and increased incidence of disease.\67\ These
events will not only affect food production and storage in Guam, but
will impact fuel prices and transportation of imports to the island.
When Super-typhoon Pongsona hit Guam in 2002, the storm destroyed
infrastructure, causing power outages, loss of water pressure, and fuel
shortages. Emergency food stamps were issued for those who lost their
food, including some of the more than 3,000 families whose homes were
damaged or destroyed, but gasoline stocks were so low that DPHSS
employees struggled to get to work and many beneficiaries could not
reach the food stamp centers.\68\ Similarly, because Guam is so reliant
on imports, other events such as worker strikes, technical problems,
slowed or failed negotiations, market crashes, or acts of terror could
similarly severely impact the island's food security. These factors
combined with Guam's increased appetite for cheap processed foods have
left the island more susceptible to shocks in food and fuel prices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ Food Secure Pacific Working Group, ``Towards a Food Secure
Pacific. Framework for Action on Food Security in the Pacific: 2011-
2015.''
\68\ Scott Radway, Mark-Alexander Pieper, and Steve Limtiaco,
``Gasoline Shortage Adds to Guam's Post-Typhoon Trauma,'' Pacific Daily
News, December 12, 2002, http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/weather/news/
2002-12-12-guam-gas-shortage_x.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Case study: local food initiatives in Guam
Although food security is a multidimensional term, this case study
focuses specifically on the concept of access. As demonstrated in
Section 2, availability has been the focus of a number of studies and
utilization has, at least in part, been addressed by other papers.\69\
Stability will likely be affected by increased severe weather events
and other effects of climate change, which could impact both local
production and imported resources. Other events, many of which might be
more unpredictable, such as security threats, acts of terrorism, and
economic slumps or crashes, also have the potential to greatly impact
the food security situation in Guam, as they could affect or interrupt
import shipments. Meanwhile, the matter of access requires more
research and, in this report, can best be understood through a systems
perspective. As outlined in Section 2, access is affected by food
prices as well as inequalities, policy and political climates, location
of markets and stores, and other factors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ E.g., John Connell, ``Food Security in the Island Pacific: Is
Micronesia as Far Away as Ever?,'' Regional Environmental Change, no.
15 (2015): 1299-1311.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This case study aims to enhance understanding of the multiple
dimensions of food security, particularly the accessibility component.
Specifically, this research is designed to highlight local food
initiatives, examining goals and impacts in relation to food security,
in relation to prospects for positive peace in Guam. The following
sections will first explain the research methodology, including
defining key indicators; second, discuss the research more broadly; and
third, present the findings. These results will be further explored the
recommendations and opportunities presented in Section 5, after a
discussion of limitations in Section 4.
3.1 Methodology
3.1.1 Definitions
There are a number of key terms that have been used throughout the
research process and feature in this report. They are defined and
measured as follows:
Food security ``exists when all people, at all times, have
physical, social, and economic access to sufficient, safe, and
nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an
active and healthy life.'' \70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ Jagerskog and Swain, Emerging Security Threats in the Middle
East: The Impact of Climate Change and Globalization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Positive peace is defined as ``peace that exceeds the absence of
violence, as characterized by the presence of justice, fairness, well-
being in individual and group interactions.'' \71\ Positive peace is
measured with guidance from the Global Peace Index (GPI), which
qualifies it as ``the attitudes, institutions, and structures that
create and sustain peaceful societies.'' \72\ The GPI highlights eight
factors that comprise this concept of positive peace, defined as:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ Galtung, Peace by Peaceful Means: Peace and Conflict,
Development and Civilization.
\72\ Institute for Economics & Peace, ``Positive Peace Report:
2015'' (New York City: Institute for Economics & Peace, October 2015).

1. Well-functioning government: a government that provides public
and civil services, fosters trust, maintains political
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
stability, and upholds the rule of law.

2. Sound business environment: economic conditions and support for
private businesses are sound; business operations are
regulated properly.

3. Equitable distribution of resources: resources are equally and
equitably accessible, including healthcare, education, and
wealth.

4. Acceptance of the rights of others: basic human rights and
freedoms are not only safeguarded by laws, but also
practiced and observed through social and cultural norms.

5. Good relations with neighbors: peaceful relations are maintained
with neighboring countries.

6. Free flow of information: free and independent media sources
allow people to access information.

7. High levels of human capital: the skills, knowledge, and
behaviors of a citizenry.

8. Low levels of corruption: where corruption exists, governments
work for prevention, and also strive to hold responsible
parties accountable.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ Institute for Economics & Peace, ``Positive Peace Report:
2015.''

Furthermore, the idea of positive peace represents society's
ability to ``meet the needs of citizens, reduce the number of
grievances that arise and resolve remaining disagreements without the
use of violence.'' \74\ For this case study, specific attention was
paid to the third indicator, to understand how local food initiatives
affect the equitable distribution of resources. This measurement lends
itself to better understanding the access component of food security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ Ibid: 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Local food initiatives are each identified based on the operating
individual's or group's expressed interest or active involvement in the
production, processing, selling, or consumption of local food.
Initiatives are furthermore classified and prioritized based on the
amount of time and activities dedicated to local food, most often a
full-time job. A local food initiative might, for example, be a
restaurant that strives to source ingredients locally or an
organization focusing on different aspects of local food education,
marketing, or production.
3.1.2 Research design and parameters
This research is designed as a case study with in-depth interviews
to optimize learning about the multi-faceted stories behind local food
initiatives, their dynamic goals, and varied methods of measuring
success. The multiple case study design allows for an exploratory and
interpretive approach. Opportunistic and convenience sampling
techniques are used in order to take advantage of unexpected and
relevant cases. This sampling technique was particularly well suited to
this study because of the research's relation to the local community.
Being independent and a visiting researcher lends itself to a fresh,
unbiased, and neutral perspective. However, much of the networking and
information sharing in Guam is informal or undocumented. For example,
some businesses, organizations, or events are shared primarily through
word of mouth, and might not be listed in either hardcopy, electronic,
and online resources. In order to reach a representative and wider
sample of local food initiatives, the researcher worked to create a
network while simultaneously conducting interviews and gathering data.
By first identifying the desired types of groups for contact within the
defined ``local food initiative,'' the researcher was then able to form
networks and navigate among contacts to facilitate interviews with
relevant and appropriate parties.
The target grounds identified for the sample within the definition
of ``local food initiative'' include:

Organizations (food or farm cooperatives, nonprofit
organizations)

Farms

Educators (University research and extension service,
educational farm)

Vendors (restaurants, markets)

At least two cases were selected for each target group category.
Cases were chosen based on (1) relevance: if the case displayed a
significant interest in local food, which was measured based on their
stated mission and goals, as well as the types of programs they
sponsored or in which they participated; (2) availability: many
individuals were difficult to reach due to schedule conflicts, the
nature of work being conducted primarily off-line; and the researcher's
restraints due largely to the brevity of the research period; and (3)
prominence: because this study is particularly interested in larger
systems at play and noticeable impacts on the community, parties that
held a prominent or growing role in the community were given first
priority.
This study was conducted from June to August 2016 on the Island of
Guam. All interviews were limited to a discussion of activities on the
island. Featured local food initiatives are all current and ongoing
projects and all individuals interviewed are currently involved in such
work.
3.2 Research findings
Anecdotally, food security is easily identified as an issue in
Guam. Conversations around food quickly turn to a discussion of the
reliance on imports or the recent changes in public health--including
increased rates of obesity and diabetes--in connection with the
processed foods that comprise a large part of many people's diets. In
conversations as well as throughout the case study interviews, the
primary concern seems to focus on the availability and, to a certain
extent, utilization pillars of food security. Meanwhile, the access
component of food security is strikingly absent from most
conversations, research, and programming around the matter. This gap
was the driving question behind the case study research.
3.2.1 Trends across and between groups
Responses during the case study interviews yielded a number of
trends. These trends are particularly useful in understanding the
overlaps and gaps between different sectors or initiatives happening in
Guam. The trends can be classified into a few thematic areas. The areas
detailed below highlight priorities suggested by the local food
community, particularly as they relate to developing and sustaining
positive peace. The areas of interest include market constraints for
local produce, the lack of quality labor in the local agriculture
sector, opportunities for improved communication among interested
parties, and the need for education around nutrition related to local
food. Table 2 presents the top interests comparatively across groups,
according to their top goals, perceived impacts, and observed
challenges.

Table 2: Local food initiative goals, impact, and challenges
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Group Goals Impact Challenges
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Farmers Import Job Costs of
substitution creation farming: power and
Provide Providi water prices, etc.
healthy, ng local, Competing
quality, natural food with foreign
variety foods Providi farmers, both
Improve ng for health internationally
the health of benefits and in Guam
the land Pests and
invasive species
Weather
and climate events
Politics
Lack of
sufficient labor
Organizations Support Support Competitio
local farmers ing the local n with import
Encoura economy prices
ge healthy Support Invasive
eating ing healthier species
Improve food options Weather
the health of events
the island Poor
communication
between groups
Educators Import Fosteri Climate
substitution ng young and weather
Improve people's changes
crop production interest in Lack of
Encoura farming labor
ge self- Support Heavy use
sufficiency for ing local of chemicals on
more people farmers farms
Encoura Poor
ge young marketing for
farmers produce
Loss of
land
Weak
consumer industry
Poor
communication
between groups
Vendors Encoura Providi Unstable
ge healthy ng healthy food availability of
eating produce
Difficult
sourcing of
locally grown and
processed meats
------------------------------------------------------------------------

All types of local food initiatives prioritized issues related to
health, market conditions, and weather events. Discussing goals and
perceived impact, many interviewees highlighted their focus on and
contribution to improving the health of the island. Farms,
organizations, educators, and vendors all stressed both their goals and
their impacts related to producing or supporting local produce in order
to increase peoples' nutrition and health.
Goals, impact, and challenges for many also focused on issues
related to the import market. Import substitution was a common goal and
multiple interviewees also perceived one of their greatest impacts to
be related to import substitution. Their impact in supporting the local
economy, whether through job creation or supporting local farmers, was
repeated several times. Furthermore, multiple respondents noted
challenges related to the import market, such as the struggle for local
farmers to remain competitive with imports in light of the high costs
they face.
Finally, challenges related to climate change and weather events
also featured prominently in groups' responses. Many interviewees cited
weather events such as storms and typhoons that destroy crops, damage
infrastructure and property, or hinder production, as well as changes
in weather patterns and related pest issues as major challenges facing
the local food community.
3.2.2 Potential for positive peace
1. Favorable market conditions for local produce

Nearly all interviewees commented on the current market conditions
as a barrier to increasing local food production and consumption in
Guam. Many individuals estimate that local products make up less than
ten percent of what is currently sold in Guam. Farmers cannot
realistically dedicate the necessary time or resources to producing at
high capacity unless they are confident of a return on their
investment. If there existed a greater space in the market or a higher
priority on selling local food and locally produced value-added goods,
farmers would be better able to increase their production.

Opportunities and positive peace

A key opportunity here is to conduct a study about market
conditions and capacity. Many people reported that produce is grown in
response to farmers and others' perception of what customers look for
or request. A survey would be helpful in capturing information about
what type of produce is currently being produced, as well as better
articulating what produce is needed and wanted in Guam to suit the
economy, diet, and growing conditions, and evaluating the potential for
more value-added products. Furthermore, this type of research could be
expanded to help establish appropriate, standardized price lists.
Another opportunity for enhancing market conditions would be to
assist farmers in expanding their options in the type of vendors they
supply. There are currently several farmers' markets in Guam and many
food stands selling local produce. Though some farmers already sell to
local grocery stores, there seems to be strong potential for more to do
so. The feasibility study might further explore such an opportunity. It
will also be important for local farmers to expand beyond these
outlets. For example, hospitals, schools, hotels, and the military are
all large markets with significant purchasing power. Greater
organization of farmers through cooperatives or other community
organizations guided by reliable and recent research would be helpful
in facilitating these processes.
These initiatives stand to make a substantial contribution to
positive peace on the island. Greater availability of local food in the
market could lead to more competitive prices. This would make healthy
food potentially more accessible to larger groups of people, such as
those limited to buying less expensive options. Favorable market
conditions could also encourage farmers to produce not only more food,
but also a greater variety of produce. More availability, choice, and
reliability of local produce in stores could help create a shift in how
people buy and what they eat. Presumably, this would benefit farmers'
livelihoods, consumer budgets, and public health.

2. Sufficient labor in local agriculture

Not only are there far fewer farms in Guam today than there were 40
or 50 years ago, but the farmer demographic is aging. Existing farmers
tend to be older and there is a lack of interest or commitment among
younger generations to take on farming either as a family tradition or
new endeavor. This tendency has been attributed to growing jobs in the
military or government, and more generally toward urbanization. More
people are moving to urban areas or looking to work in office
environments, rather than in farm fields.
Existing farmers also struggle to find enough quality labor to help
in their fields. Several farmers and other interviewees who work
closely with farmers noted that there is not sufficient quality labor
available. They cited struggles to find abled individuals with strong
work ethic who could adequately contribute to farm productivity. Many
also noted an increasing number of foreign-owned farmers or foreign
workers on farms. Interviewees noted that foreign-owned farms may not
pay the same fees and dues as local farmers, such as social security
taxes or a minimum wage to workers, and that they might source
pesticides and other goods through unofficial channels. This is
perceived to create not only an imbalanced cost scenario, but also the
potential of serious risks to the environment and food safety.

Opportunities and positive peace

One avenue for addressing the labor issues is through increased
education. Some nonprofit organizations, community groups, and academic
institutions focus on involving students and young people in the
agricultural process. Weekend science programs, field trips to farms,
school farming and gardening initiatives, and educational programs
teaching basic nutrition represent such efforts to shift eating habits,
connect young people to their land, and reintroduce an appreciation for
farming. Greater support of such efforts through official channels,
such as government programming, conducive policy framework, targeted
grant programs, and dedicated resources could greatly improve the
situation.
Involving more young people in farming and agriculture stands to
contribute to Guam's overall positive peace. Such efforts could yield
greater interest among young people for farm work, farm ownership or
operation, support of local agriculture, and healthy and nutritious
diets based on local food. In turn, such outcomes could lead to
improvements in the industry, enhanced production, preservation and
further development of local and traditional knowledge, circulation of
money in the local economy, as well as a more diversified economy and
improved island health. Though these changes may take years to be
realized, education is a crucial component of fostering the process and
long-term change.

3. Enhanced communication among local-food interest groups

A number of interviewees emphasized the need for better
communication between the many different actors in Guam who are working
in local food. Repeatedly, there was reference to the perception that
different groups act either without regard for or without consultation
of other related groups. For instance, the perception of programs being
conducted without specific care for farmers' interests; distributors,
vendors, and farmers all misunderstanding the constraints that keep
them from reaching local-food goals; or grants that are received
without the recipient group being fully aware of what is necessary or
without being able to properly carry out the specified activities.
These perceptions were found across groups: among and within farms,
organizations, educators, and vendors. Although these perceptions are
not always accurate, or only partially correct, they point to a more
important issue: there is room for more effective communication among
local-food interests in Guam.

Opportunities and positive peace

Sharing knowledge, resources, and data among different actors and
sectors could potentially reduce redundancies in work; increase all
sectors' productivity, through enhanced resources and opportunities;
and support more democratic decision-making and boost community support
or public buy-in.
One example of this is in discussion of organic certification.
Although there are a number of individuals who are trained in organic
certification in Guam, there is not yet an organic certification board
on the island. Without this board, produce in Guam cannot be marketed
as an organic product. Perceptions vary as to whether this step is
truly necessary. A study might be useful in determining whether there
is a significant demand for organic produce in Guam. Further
identifying key priorities for actively engaging farmers, distributors,
and vendors would be essential to successfully implementing an organic
certification process. Alternatives to organics might also be a
worthwhile consideration. Establishing a system similar to that of
Hawaii Organic might be more context-appropriate and could potentially
meet the needs of the local community more effectively.
A more connected community with strong networks stands to be more
resilient. Networks provide and facilitate connections between and
within sectors to address challenges and embrace opportunities. For
instance, strong lines of communication and more direct collaboration
could mean academic and civil organizations would be better equipped to
build on each others' strengthens and contribute more efficiently to
shared goals and objectives. Such networks could also be more apt at
navigating market or political systems or pushing for necessary
changes. Sharing resources to address challenges fosters greater
resiliency that will be crucial as Guam faces increased impacts of
globalization, militarization, and climate change.

4. Targeted education highlighting nutritional benefits of local
food

Almost all interviewees stressed the importance of the health
benefits of local food. This is not surprising, given that the health
challenges currently facing the island are largely food related, such
as diabetes, obesity, and other diseases. Several cases also noted the
need for increased education to promote the benefits of local food and
teach young people and families about the impact their diet has on
their health. In another example that emerged during interviews, a
local restaurant owner leads weekend programs about nutrition and to
teach families how to adopt more healthy diets. Although some such
education efforts already exist, more is needed in order to combat
current unhealthy diet trends and widespread consumption of imported,
highly processed foods.

Opportunities and positive peace

In addition to restaurants or other businesses and community groups
leading such education efforts, there are a number of other entry
points for incorporating nutrition education. School lunch programs and
health classes are natural fits for teaching about the benefits of
eating healthy. Schools, businesses, and community groups focusing on
health programming should strengthen connections with the health sector
as well. In response to the health crisis, more public health
campaigns, local clinics, and organizations promoting health have
emerged. Partnerships between these initiatives and actors in the local
food sector could be mutually beneficial.
Such intersectional efforts could reach a wider audience by
introducing campaigns at large community gatherings. For example, more
healthy food stands or stalls that promote an understanding of healthy
lifestyles in connection with local produce might be well suited at the
Wednesday evening Chamorro Village or other events with large
audiences. Local village marts also provide good settings for expanding
nutrition education. Local marts often hold prominent roles in the
community and many become destinations for individuals and families to
look for specific products. Featuring nutrition information and healthy
options regularly at such locations has the potential for nutrition
efforts to reach more people in a way that would also benefit local
businesses.
Efforts to improve the overall health of the island through a
local-food approach would have wide reaching benefits for positive
peace. Aside from enhancing well-being directly through contributing to
healthier lifestyles, such efforts could also benefit the business
community, more equitably distribute resources and make information
more readily accessible. Integrating nutrition information more widely
and mainstreaming local food across such initiatives is an effective
way of addressing multiple challenges currently facing Guam, especially
if done through cross-sectional and collaborative channels.
3.2.3 Further areas for exploration
Although interviews covered a wide range of responses and
highlighted many important issues facing the local food community in
Guam, there were certain topics that remained underrepresented in
conversations. These topics may warrant further consideration and
examination. In particular, this report found that food initiatives
either lacked or did not prioritize the following:

1. Diversified access to local food--More attention should be
dedicated to understanding who has access to local, healthy
food. For example, physical points of sale for local food
at farmers' markets, food stands, or grocery stores, may be
inaccessible to some people. Prices of food may further
exclude some people from buying or producing local food.
Particular attention should be paid to whether these
occurrences disproportionately impact certain groups that
may be in vulnerable or disadvantaged situations owing to
their socioeconomic, geographic, or other situations. For
example, data should be compiled to highlight intersections
between demographics (socioeconomic, ethnic, racial, age,
gender, etc.), health, reliance on food assistance
benefits, homelessness, geographic location, and
nutritional consumption. Alternative approaches to
improving food accessibility might be considered, such as
implementing policies to support job growth and nutrition
interventions, rather than simply increasing food benefits.
The Community Food Security Assessment Toolkit, available
through the Electronic Publications from the Food
Assistance and Nutrition Research Program, highlights
techniques for such data collection with regard to
community leadership in assessing all aspects of household
food security.

2. Focus on traditions and culture values--A small number of
interviewees highlighted connections to traditional
knowledge, practices, and food. Increasing attention to
this component could serve the local food community in a
number of ways, not least of which include preserving
indigenous species of plants. These benefits would
contribute to the overall health and biodiversity of the
island and could potentially encourage production of goods
and services for the tourism industry that would boost the
local economy. Furthermore, indigenous and local knowledge
and practices such as risk management and resource
preservation make important contributions to local food
security and should be further recognized and actively
engaged.

3. Connection to colonialism--The policies, practices, and current
situation in Guam is inexplicably tied to not only the
legacy of historic colonialism, but also to Guam's current
political status as an unincorporated organized territory
of the U.S. Understanding and addressing historical and
modern impacts Guam's political status are essential to
forming a complete picture of the food security situation
and to take effective steps to remedy harms and provide for
positive, sustained growth that focuses most on the needs
of the local community.

Excluding these topics may prevent a complete understanding and
thorough approaches necessary for strengthening local food initiatives
and benefiting the community. As the local food community continues to
grow in Guam, it will be important to address these and other issues
that may arise in order to better serve the entire community and to
foster food security as well as positive peace.
4. Limitations
There were a number of factors limiting this research. Primarily,
time was a major obstacle. This affected which groups were included in
the study and the overall spread of the research. The time constraints
on this research limited the type of data that could be collected. An
extended research period and more collaboration with local actors would
allow this case study to benefit from a mixed methods approach, such as
combining the interviews with surveys to capture, for example, more
consumer experiences. Furthermore, a research period that allowed for
baseline data collection regarding positive peace indicators, as well
as a data collection at a future point would allow for useful
comparisons to track developments and measure impact of local food
initiatives on positive peace.
Another factor limiting this research was the lack of relevant
data. For example, it was noted that farm Census data has not been
consistently collected and available results are not completely
reliable. This meant that assessing the number of farms and levels of
farm production is difficult in Guam. Furthermore, some studies on
aspects of food security have been initiated and either not completed
or not published. The lack of publicly available research and
consistent, reliable data on this topic is a barrier to those seeking
to create well-informed projects based on data and facts. Further
research will help address this gap.
5. Recommendations
1. Enhanced understanding of the food security situation--Effective
action around food security must build on accurate and
updated information. Studies, data collection, and analysis
should be continued and increasingly collaborate with
community stakeholders. This would contribute to available
knowledge practically so as to better meet the needs of the
community. Areas for further study might include:

a. Farmer surveys to measure productivity, types of produce being
grown, po-
tential for increased capacity, etc.;

b. Consumer interest and market space for greater variety of local
produce;

c. Potential for introducing more value-added products;

d. Surveys and studies to better understand market saturation and
opportuni-
ties; and

e. Research on connections between population demographics and
access to
and utilization of healthy food.

2. Expanded education on nutrition--Increased public awareness and
understanding around basic nutrition and links between diet
and health are crucial to improving food security. There is
much work being done in Guam to improve health,
specifically to decrease rates of diabetes and other
diseases. This work could be combined with efforts to raise
awareness of the health benefits to eating local produce.
Integrating knowledge and action around health and local
food through nutrition would benefit people's well-being
and support local agriculture.

3. Encouraging young farmers--Programs targeting and engaging young
people in food systems could help encourage more of them to
work on or start farms. Education in schools and training
programs to introduce young people to farming and allow
them to experience it are important steps toward increasing
the number of local farmers and shifting the farmer
demographic to include a younger population. This will also
help to build continuity of skills and productivity and to
pass on local knowledge, both of which are increasingly
important as the current farming population ages.

4. Market expansion--Studies and surveys could provide greater
potential for expanding the market. Large opportunities
exist in Guam that are relatively underdeveloped for local
farmers. Opportunities for farmers to expand to supply
other vendors besides typical grocery stores and farmers'
markets could include contracts or arrangements with the
tourism industry and military. The tourism industry is
projected to continue growing. With many hotels and
restaurants, there is potential to market ``local food'' as
a selling point for tourists and for local food sales to
increase. There is also an expected increase in military
presence. While this may have other effects on the food
security situation, one opportunity might be to work with
the military to supply local food both to base stores in
Guam and to export food from Guam to other U.S. military
bases. This opportunity could be beneficial to military
personnel and their families by enhancing their quality of
life and healthy food options, and to farmers in Guam
through added demand for their produce.

5. Improved communication and coordination--Stronger channels of
communication between interested groups in Guam would
enhance the opportunities available to individual groups
and the collective of local food initiatives, benefitting
the food security situation. Between academics, policy
makers, nonprofits, business, and farmers, there are many
different goals and strategies for addressing food security
dilemmas. Sharing knowledge, data, and resources more
effectively both within and across these groups could
benefit food security efforts and improve the overall
resiliency of the island.

7. Targeted food accessibility programs *--Equitable distribution is
a key factor in achieving food security. Using data to
assess the community's food security situation could
indicate which individuals and groups are in more
vulnerable situations. This information could influence
targeted programming to ensure that assistance programs do
not reinforce harmful power structures and that food is
equitably accessible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Editor's note: the numbered entry for 6 was not in the report as
submitted. It has be reproduced herein as it was published.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Conclusion
Food is connected both as a cause and consequence of conflict and
is reciprocally linked to peace. Violence can lead to or exacerbate
food insecurity by disrupting food production, interrupting
distribution, hindering investment in food sectors, or destroying
infrastructure and assets. Likewise, food insecurity has been shown to
be a contributing factor in conflict, though not definitively as a
cause in itself. Food can aggravate conflict through, among other
things, contributing to riots and instability over food price spikes,
resource competition, and inequalities. Food is also a means for
achieving or stabilizing peace. Food resources are essential to
fostering household and country resiliency and can enable a community
to adapt to, recover from, and thrive after conflict.
The Pacific islands have faced particular challenges in achieving
food security. Population, climate change, and governance have and are
projected to continue to influence food security. In Guam, these
factors are further complicated by context-specific factors. Perhaps
most consequential to food security in Guam are the island's political
status and related trade policies, the widespread dependence on food
assistance, a market economy that favors imports, and diet trends that
have contributed to poor nutrition and a health crisis.
This report has highlighted different aspects of food security in
Guam and analyzed these factors in the context of positive peace. Guam
has been shaped by history that is rich in indigenous and local
knowledge and skills. The Chamorro people have long been a self-
sufficient people. Developments in globalization and militarization
have greatly influenced this and other aspects of life on the island.
Modern political, economic, social, and other developments have had
many positive impacts on the daily life of people in Guam, but have
also contributed to challenges and obstacles to realizing positive
peace, including food security.
Strengthening the presence and consumption of local food in Guam
offers the potential to improve the well-being of the population. Local
food plays an important part in the food security situation on the
island and relates to the pillars of positive peace. According to
findings presented by the International Food Policy Research Institute
(IFPRI), national level food security is required before household food
security can be achieved.\75\ This means that availability of food must
be secured before access and utilization can be fully realized and
enjoyed. This requires more government policies and investments,
whereas household security can be built through specific programs.\76\
Food quantity and options are widely available in Guam. Grocery stores
are well stocked under normal conditions and vendors carry a wide range
of food options. The recommendations outlined in this report lend
themselves to further strengthening this, targeting availability and
stability aspects of food security through strengthening the local
economy, supporting local farmers, and mitigating and adapting to
effects of climate and other impacts. The recommendations further aim
to enhance the accessibility and utilization aspects of food security
through addressing health issues and ensuring equitable access to
healthy local food.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ Breisinger, et al., ``Building Resilience for Food and
Nutrition Security.''
\76\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the limitations previously addressed, this study's
attempts to link food security and positive peace have been relatively
incomplete. As stated, efforts to define and evaluate the current food
security situation have been hindered by the lack of consistent and
reliable data. Although there are studies on specific aspects of food
security, researchers and practitioners in Guam have identified gaps in
available data, such as the inconsistent farmer surveys. This kind of
data is essential for forming a holistic picture of the situation, as
well as for understanding finer aspects, such as equitable access to
nutritious food across demographics. In the context of this case study,
these obstacles made it difficult to have a well-informed perspective
of food security necessary to then discuss food in relation to positive
peace.
In order to better understand how food security will contribute to
positive peace, there is a need for better metrics on both subjects.
More disaggregated data concerning the current food security situation
is needed, including information on what farmers produce, potential for
greater production and value-added products, nutrition consumption, and
household food security detailed by demographic. The interviews in this
case study provided a useful basis for considering how local food
initiatives currently impact and aim to influence aspects of positive
peace and well-being through local food. These conversations and the
recommendations that emerged from interviews are valuable and would
further benefit from an analysis of positive peace indicators. Positive
peace indicators and information about the food security situation
before, during, and after World War II, as well the current situation
and future projections would not only enhance understanding of the
relationship between conflict, peace, and food, but also help shape
future efforts so as to effectively contribute to positive peace.
Food security promises to be an increasingly important
consideration for Guam, other Pacific islands, and beyond. As factors
such as globalization and climate change continue to impact food
production and distribution, it will be essential to better understand
the multi-faceted dynamics of food security. Addressing food security
continues to be a matter of ensuring people have enough to eat and that
no one is limited by hunger or perishes due to starvation. But in
communities where there is negative peace, where people are not
actively engaged in conflict, food security takes on added importance
in contributing to the greater well-being of society. Adaptive measures
must benefit food security in a way that fosters positive peace. Food
security is essential if society is to do more than survive; it is
paramount to our ability to thrive.

References

Barrett, Christopher B. ``Food or Consequences: Food Security and
Its Implications for Global Sociopolitical Stability.'' In Food
Security and Sociopolitical Stability, edited by Christopher B.
Barrett, 1-34. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.
Breisinger, Clemens, Olivier Ecker, Jean-Franois Maystadt, Jean-
Francois Trinh Tan, Perrihan Al-Riffai, Khalida Bouzar, Abdelkarim Sma,
and Mohamed Abdelgadir. ``Building Resilience for Food and Nutrition
Security.'' In International Food Policy Research Institute, 1-34,
2014.
Bureau of Statistics and Plans. ``Guam Statistical Yearbook 2014.''
Hagatna: Office of the Governor of Guam, 2015.
___. ``Guam's Facts and Figures at a Glance 2013.'' Hagatna: Office
of the Governor of Guam, 2014.
Campbell, John, and Olivia Warrick. ``Climate Change and Migration
Issues in the Pacific.'' United Nations Economic and Social Commission
for Asia and the Pacific, Pacific Office, August 2014.
Carano, Paul, and Pedro C. Sanchez. A Complete History of Guam. 9th
ed. Rutland and Tokyo: Charles E. Tuttle Company, 1982.
Central Intelligence Agency. ``Guam.'' The World Factbook. Accessed
September 10, 2016. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-
factbook/geos/gq.html.
___. ``United States.'' Government. The World Factbook. Accessed
September 10, 2016. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-
factbook/geos/us.html.
Connell, John. ``Food Security in the Island Pacific: Is Micronesia
as Far Away as Ever?'' Regional Environmental Change, no. 15 (2015):
1299-1311.
Crisostomo, Lorileet T., and Albert M. Perez. ``Guam Import Data.''
External Trade Section. Hagatna: Bureau of Statistics and Plans,
December 2014.
De Schutter, Oliver. ``International Trade in Agriculture and the
Right to Food.'' In Dialogue on Globalization, 46: 1-52. Occasional
Papers. Geneva: Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, 2009.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,
International Fund for Agricultural Development, and World Food
Programme. ``The State of Food Insecurity in the World. Meeting the
2015 International Hunger Targets: Taking Stock of Uneven Progress.''
Rome, 2015. http://www.fao.org/hunger/en/.
Food and Nutrition Service. ``Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program: State Activity Report, Fiscal Year 2014.'' State Activity
Report. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Program
Accountability and Administration Division, United States Department of
Agriculture, October 2015. www.fns.usda.gov/pd/snapmain.html.
Food Secure Pacific. ``Summit Outcomes Document: Pacific Food
Summit.'' Port Vila, April 2010.
Food Secure Pacific Working Group. ``Towards a Food Secure Pacific.
Framework for Action on Food Security in the Pacific: 2011-2015.'' Port
Vila, 2010.
Galtung, Johan, and International Peace Research Institute, Oslo.
Peace by Peaceful Means: Peace and Conflict, Development and
Civilization. Vol. 14. Peace and Conflict, Development and
Civilization. London: GB: SAGE Publications Ltd, 1996.
Goure, Daniel. ``The Jones Act and Homeland Security in the 21st
Century.'' The Lexington Institute, July 2016. http://
lexingtoninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Jones-Act-and-
Homeland-Security.pdf.
Government of Guam Department of Public Health and Social Services,
and Non-Communicable Disease Consortium. ``Guam Non-Communicable
Disease Strategic Plan 2014-2018.'' Live Healthy Guam. Mangilao: Non-
Communicable Disease Consortium, December 2013.
Gruhl, Werner. Imperial Japan's World War Two, 1931-1945.
Transaction Publishers, 2007.
Guam Visitors Bureau. ``Vision 2020.'' Tumon: Guam Visitors Bureau,
2014.
Henson, Laura. ``Emmy Simmons: To Improve Food Security and Prevent
Conflict, Think and Commit Long Term.'' New Security Beat, Wilson
Center's Environmental Change and Security Program, October 4, 2013.
https://www.newsecuritybeat.org/2013/10/emmy-simmons-overview-
highlights-harvesting-peace-food-security-conflict-cooperation/1/2.
Institute for Economics & Peace. ``Positive Peace Report: 2015.''
New York City: Institute for Economics & Peace, October 2015.
Jagerskog, Anders, and Ashok Swain. Emerging Security Threats in the
Middle East: The Impact of Climate Change and Globalization. London:
Rowman & Littlefield, 2016.
Jennewein, Chris. ``Hunter Named `Champion of Maritime' For Support
of Shipbuilding.'' Times of San Diego. September 30, 2015. http://
timesofsandiego.com/politics/2015/09/30/hunter-named-champion-of-
maritime-for-support-of-shipbuilding/.
Letman, John. ``Proposed US Military Buildup on Guam Angers Locals
Who Liken It to Colonization.'' The Guardian, August 1, 2016.
Messer, Ellen, and Marc J. Cohen. ``Conflict, Food Insecurity, and
Globalization.'' International Food Policy Research Institute, May
2006, 1-45.
Morris, Charles. ``Guam.'' Guam: Department of Public Health and
Social Services, 2003.
Natividad, LisaLinda, and Gwyn Kirk. ``Fortress Guam: Resistance to
the US Military Mega-Buildup.'' The Asia-Pacific Journal, Japan Focus,
8, no. 19 (May 2010): 1-17.
Office of the Governor of Guam. ``Health Revolution.'' State of the
Island Address. Hagatna, 2014.
Paulino, Yvette C., Rachael T. Leon Guerrero, and Charissa M. Agoun.
``Nutritional Analysis of a Fiesta on Guam.'' Micronesica 40, no. 1/2
(January 1, 2008): 233-44.
Paulino, Yvette C., Rachael T. Leon Guerrero, Alyssa A. Ucangco,
Mary Grace Rosadino, Julietta C. Quinene, and Zenaida N. Natividad.
``Overweight and Obesity Prevalence among Public School Children in
Guam.'' Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved 26, no. 2
(May 2015): 53-62.
Radway, Scott, Mark-Alexander Pieper, and Steve Limtiaco. ``Gasoline
Shortage Adds to Guam's Post-Typhoon Trauma.'' Pacific Daily News,
December 12, 2002. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/weather/news/2002-12-
12-guam-gas-shortage_x.htm.
Rogers, Robert F. Destiny's Landfall: A History of Guam. Honolulu:
University of Hawaii Press, 1995.
Rojas, Gena, Fred Schumann, and Maria Claret M. Ruane. ``Guam Farmer
Survey: February-April 2014.'' PCEI Technical Report. Pacific Center
for Economic Initiatives, University of Guam, May 2014.
Simmons, Emmy. ``Harvesting Peace: Food Security, Conflict, and
Cooperation.'' Environmental Change and Security Program Report.
Washington, D.C.: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars,
2013.
Stricherz, Vince. ``Brown Tree Snake Could Mean Guam Will Lose More
than Its Birds.'' UW Today, August 21, 2008. http://www.washington.edu/
news/2008/08/21/brown-tree-snake-could-mean-guam-will-lose-more-than-
its-birds-2.
United Nations General Assembly. ``Information from Non-Self
Governing Territories Transmitted under Article 73e of the Charter of
the United Nations, Report of the Secretary-General.'' United Nations,
2015. http://www.un.org/en/events/nonselfgoverning/
nonselfgoverning.shtml.
United States Census Bureau. ``Guam Demographic Profile Summary
File: 2010 Census of Population and Housing,'' March 2014.
United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural
Statistics Service, and Bureau of Statistics and Plans, Government of
Guam. ``1998 Census of Agriculture: Guam.'' Census, October 2003.
United States House of Representatives. 48 U.S.C. Ch. 16: Delegates
to Congress, Title 48--Territories and Insular Possessions. Title VII,
712, 122 Stat. 868. Vol. 48 U.S.C. 1752, 2008. United States Senate.
46. U.S.C. 50101 et seq., 2006.
___. Merchant Marine Act. 41 Stat. 988, 1920.
World Health Organization, Western Pacific Region. ``Pacific Food
Summit.'' Meeting Report. Port Vila: World Health Organization, April
2010.

______

Submitted Legislation
H.R. 8489, Price Reform In Cattle Economics Act (PRICE Act)
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

H.R. 5680, Saving Workers by Eliminating Economic Tampering and
Ensuring Reliability Act (SWEETER Act)

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______

Submitted Report by Hon. Dusty Johnson, a Representative in Congress
from South Dakota

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Boxed Beef & Fed Cattle Price Spread Investigation Report

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Beef cattle standing in a field.]

July 22, 2020
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. Summary of Market Impacts of the Tyson Holcomb Fire
III. General Beef Industry Market Conditions Pre-Fire
IV. Plant Closure and Initial Market Reactions
V. Summary of Market Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic
VI. General Beef Industry Market Conditions Pre-Pandemic
VII. Market Reactions
VIII. Continued Vigilance
IX. Figure 1 and Figure 2

Average Weekly Negotiated Price--All Cattle Dressed Basis
Weekly Choice Beef Cutout

X. Figure 3 and Figure 4

Negotiated Choice Cutout/Cattle Price Spread
Fed Cattle--% Weekly Negotiated Cash Sales

XI. Figure 5 and Figure 6

Weekly Est. Federally Inspected Beef Production
Weekly Slaughtered Cattle Purchase Type Breakdown

XII. Other Considerations

a. Price Reporting and Transparency
b. Risk Management Solutions
c. Small Processor and Cooperative Opportunities
d. P&S Act Updates and Enforcement

XIII. Conclusion

Appendix: Price Discovery through Livestock Mandatory Reporting
Appendix References
Introduction
The markets and processing systems responsible for the production
and sale of U.S. beef were disrupted by two separate events in 2019 and
2020. The first occurred when the Tyson Fresh Meats (Tyson) beef
packing plant in Holcomb, Kansas closed for 4 months following a fire
at the facility on August 9, 2019, which disrupted processing systems
and markets. The second occurred as COVID-19 spread throughout the U.S.
in 2020, which resulted in further and more significant market
disruptions.
In the weeks and months after both events, the difference--or
spread--between the Choice boxed beef cutout values and dressed fed
cattle prices rose to records levels. In response to the rising
spreads, the Secretary of Agriculture directed the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's (USDA) Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) to
investigate the fed cattle and beef market impacts from the Tyson fire
and then expand the investigation to include the COVID-19 impacts. The
purpose of the investigation is to examine whether any regulated
entities violated the Packers and Stockyards Act by taking advantage of
the situation through price manipulation, collusion, restrictions of
competition, or other unfair practices.
This report, prepared by AMS in coordination with USDA's Office of
the Chief Economist, first summarizes market conditions, fed cattle
prices, boxed beef values, and the spread before and after the fire and
plant closure at the Tyson Holcomb plant. The report then summarizes
market conditions, fed cattle prices, boxed beef values, and the spread
before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. It does not examine potential
violations of the Packers and Stockyards Act. The investigation into
potential violations is ongoing, and therefore, AMS has limited ability
to publicly report the full scope and status of the investigation.
Summary of Market Impacts of the Tyson Holcomb Fire
The closure of the Tyson beef packing plant in Holcomb, Kansas,
following the August 9, 2019 fire at the facility, disrupted the
markets and processing systems responsible for the production and sale
of U.S. beef. The plant accounted for approximately five to six percent
of the nation's beef processing capacity. The largest difference--or
spread--between the dressed fed cattle price and the Choice boxed beef
cutout value (since the inception of Mandatory Price Reporting \1\ in
2001) was recorded at $67.17/cwt. after the Tyson Holcomb fire. That
record was later exceeded following the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020
discussed later in this report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/mmr/lmr.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This report's analysis takes into consideration: trends and
conditions in these markets before the fire; seasonal demand for beef
heading into the Labor Day holiday weekend; packers, cattle sellers,
and beef buyers' responses to the plant closure; and the impacts on
dressed fed cattle prices and Choice boxed beef cutout values. Key
observations from this analysis include the following:

1. The timing of the fire in early August coincided with the
seasonal increase in boxed beef demand leading up to the
Labor Day holiday weekend. Typically, many retailers make
pricing and promotional decisions several weeks in advance
of the Labor Day holiday.

2. Futures prices for fed cattle decreased significantly in the days
immediately after the fire. Fed cattle markets then
followed with price decreases.

3. Shortly after the fire, packers increased their processing volume
primarily through the addition of Saturday slaughter
shifts.

4. There was a marked drop in the number and percentage of
negotiated cash sales of fed cattle immediately after the
fire.

5. The plant closure appeared to affect the spread between boxed
beef values and fed cattle prices. The spread between the
two peaked at a then-record high of $67.17/cwt. the week
ending August 24, while the same week in 2016-2018 averaged
a spread of $27.66/cwt., leaving a difference of $39.51/
cwt. or 143 percent.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The difference between the weekly average negotiated Choice
boxed beef cutout value and the weekly average negotiated price for
steers and heifers sourced from the National Weekly Direct Slaughter
Cattle--Negotiated Purchases (https://www.ams.usda.gov/mnreports/
ams_2481.pdf) report using an average of the dressed basis and live
basis prices where the live basis price is converted to a dressed basis
by dividing by an average steer/heifer dressing percentage of 63%. This
places cattle prices on a dressed basis for comparison to the Choice
beef cutout.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Beef Industry Market Conditions Pre-Fire
USDA Market News collects industry data from a number of data
sources on boxed beef cutout values, fed cattle prices, and calculates
the spread between boxed beef cutout values and fed cattle prices. AMS
also collects data on the percentage of fed cattle purchase types and
beef production. These data are shown in Figures 1 through 6, and the
sources of the data are footnoted in this report.
In the weeks prior to the fire, market conditions were stable,
roughly in line with seasonal trends expected in cattle and beef
markets. The Cattle on Feed report estimated 11.5 million head of
cattle on feed on July 1, 2019, the highest July inventory since 1996.
The ratio of heifers to steers steadily increased from 2018 to 2019,
resulting in lighter overall carcass weights. The lighter carcass
weights reduced projections for overall beef production despite the
increased inventory of cattle on feed.
Fed cattle prices moved lower before partially recovering from June
to July 2019, while beef prices declined over the same period (Figures
1 and 2). Based on historical data, the beef price decline was to be
expected, as July typically sees a reduction in boxed beef demand
following the Independence Day holiday before it rebounds through
August as Labor Day approaches. Conditions prior to the fire appeared
consistent with this expectation, and the negotiated Choice cutout
value ended July down three percent from the previous month.
With cattle prices increasing in July and beef prices decreasing,
the spread between the dressed weight prices paid for fed cattle and
Choice cutout values narrowed to $31.04/cwt. by the end of the month
(Figure 3).
Plant Closure and Initial Market Reactions
The fire occurred mid-evening on a Friday when many cattle and beef
marketing institutions had closed for the weekend. At the time of the
fire, industry estimates indicated the Holcomb plant was harvesting
approximately 30,000 head of fed cattle each week, accounting for five
to six percent of the weekly U.S. fed cattle slaughter totals. Tyson
indicated that due to the excessive damage, including a partial roof
collapse, the plant would be closed for an unknown period of time.
Impact on Production
USDA Market News collects packer self-reported estimates of daily
fed cattle slaughter and releases that report every weekday.\3\
Immediately following the fire, packers reported that slaughter numbers
for every day of the first week post fire would be lower compared to
the previous week, suggesting a reduction in slaughter capacity post
fire. Estimates indicating additional Saturday shifts for August 17
were not available until the afternoon of Friday, August 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Sourced from the Estimated Daily Livestock Slaughter Under
Federal Inspection (https://www.ams.usda.gov/mnreports/sj_ls710.txt)
report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actual slaughter numbers collected by USDA's Food Safety Inspection
Service were not available until August 29, but largely confirmed
Market News estimates from the first post-fire week. The significant
Saturday production--an increase of about 21,000 head--made up some of
the actual weekday loss in slaughter, resulting in actual total steer
and heifer slaughter numbers being only 1,000 head lower than week
leading up to the fire.
Despite the loss of the Holcomb plant, the total number of fed
cattle harvested during the first three post-fire weeks actually
outpaced that of the three weeks prior to the fire by approximately
5,000 head. This should not be unexpected as rising boxed beef prices
and the higher price spread provided an incentive to packers to
increase production. In the weeks after the fire, Tyson appears to have
shipped a significant portion of the cattle it would have previously
processed at the Holcomb plant to its other plants.
Impact on Price
In the weeks before Labor Day, retailers typically have their
featuring plans and circulars in place targeting anticipated holiday
beef demand. During this time, they move to purchase sufficient product
to cover their planned holiday promotions. This process was already
underway when the fire occurred. Immediately after the fire, beef
buyers moved aggressively to procure sufficient product to fulfill
their supply needs as the initial information available to market
participants indicated the supply of boxed beef may decrease. During
the first two weeks post-fire, boxed beef prices trended significantly
higher before slowing as needs were covered and a clearer understanding
of the plant's closure on the marketplace was gained.
Of note, a comparison of advertised prices for beef by major
supermarket chains to consumers for Labor Day 2019 indicates virtually
no change from similar ad pricing in 2018. As Labor Day passed, beef
demand slowed, and the impacts of the beef supply shock dissipated.
With additional market information and increased slaughter, the Choice
boxed beef cutout value declined steadily. The boxed beef cutout value
returned to pre-fire levels toward the end of September but remained
above 2016-2018 levels.
The weekly average Choice boxed beef cutout value for the week of
the plant fire stood at $216.04/cwt., one percent above the $213.09/
cwt. average for the last week of July. During the first post-fire
week, the weekly average Choice cutout value rose to $230.43/cwt. a 6.7
percent increase from the previous week. The Choice cutout continued to
rise into the second post-fire week, to $239.87/cwt. an 11 percent
total increase from the week of the fire. Beginning the third week
post-fire, the Choice cutout value began to decline, continuing to a
low of $212.58/cwt. in the first week of October, an 11 percent decline
from its high during the second week post-fire (Figure 2).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Weekly average negotiated Choice boxed beef cutout value on a
carcass basis in dollars/cwt. sourced from the National Weekly Boxed
Beef Cutout and Boxed Beef Cuts--Negotiated Sales (https://
www.ams.usda.gov/mnreports/ams_2461.pdf) report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cattle futures trading on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) is
widely followed by cattle market participants as an indicator of future
prices for cattle. CME limits the amount that the price of a live
cattle futures contract may change in a day. The August live cattle
futures contract hit the lower limit of the trading value on the Monday
following the fire and again on Tuesday. During the week following the
fire, October contracts posted daily declines culminating in a nine
percent decline by week's end. Through the remainder of August, October
contracts were lower than August contracts suggesting that the futures
market expected prices to be lower in October.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ https://www.cmegroup.com/trading/agricultural/livestock/live-
cattle.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The weekly average fed cattle negotiated cash dressed price during
the week leading up to the fire was $180/cwt. on a dressed weight
basis, one percent below the $181.81/cwt. average for the final week of
July. Following the declines in fed cattle futures prices, the price of
fed cattle declined six percent to $169.81/cwt. during the first post-
fire week, but gained just under two percent in the second post-fire
week to $172.70/cwt. Negotiated fed cattle prices declined to a low
point of $159.06/cwt. for the week ending September 14 (Figure 1).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The weekly average negotiated price for steers and heifers on a
dressed basis sourced from the National Weekly Direct Slaughter
Cattle--Negotiated Purchases (https://www.ams.usda.gov/mnreports/
ams_2481.pdf) report using an average of the dressed basis and live
basis prices where the live basis price is converted to a dressed basis
by dividing by an average steer/heifer dressing percentage of 63%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the week leading up to the fire, 74,000 head of fed cattle
were traded on a negotiated cash basis.\7\ The first week following the
fire, only 53,750 head were traded on a negotiated basis, a 27 percent
decrease from the prior week. Some sales during that period shifted to
formula trading. In the same week that negotiated sales fell, there was
a 15,000 head increase in formula trading. There was a marked drop in
the number and percentage of negotiated cash fed cattle purchases
immediately after the fire (Figures 4 and 6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The percentage of weekly purchase types (negotiated cash,
formula net, forward contract, and negotiated grid) sourced from the
National Weekly Direct Slaughter Cattle--Formulated and Forward
Contract--Domestic (https://www.ams.usda.gov/mnreports/ams_2478.pdf)
and the National Weekly Direct Slaughter Cattle--Negotiated Purchases
(https://www.ams.usda.gov/mnreports/ams_2481.pdf) reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the week leading up to the plant fire, the spread between the
negotiated dressed fed cattle price and the Choice boxed beef value was
$36.03/cwt. In the first week post-fire, with declines in fed cattle
prices and sharp increases in Choice boxed beef values, the spread
widened 68 percent to $60.62/cwt. The spread continued to widen in the
second week after the fire, increasing another 11 percent to reach a
high of $67.17/cwt. (Figure 3), which at the time, was the largest
spread between the price of fed cattle and the price of boxed beef
since the inception of Mandatory Price Reporting in 2001. After the
third week post-fire, the spread narrowed to $41.77/cwt., a 38 percent
decrease from its post-fire high.
Summary of Market Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic
COVID-19 in the United States has significantly disrupted the
markets and processing systems responsible for the production and sale
of U.S. beef. By the last week of April, disruptions in beef production
peaked when nearly 40 percent of the nation's beef processing capacity
was idled due to COVID-19 illnesses among packing plant employees.
During this COVID-19 pandemic, the largest difference--or spread--
between the Choice boxed beef cutout value and dressed fed cattle
prices since the inception of Mandatory Price Reporting in 2001 was
recorded at just over $279/cwt.
This report summarizes market conditions before and during the
pandemic and its impacts on fed cattle prices and boxed beef values,
utilizing data covering the period January 1 through June 6, 2020. Key
observations from this analysis include:

1. The market reactions to the pandemic during the month of March
were characterized by sudden changes in beef demand.
Consumers increased purchases of fresh beef at grocery
stores, and food service demand declined as restaurants
ceased on-site dining.

2. Boxed beef cutout values increased and fed cattle prices were
volatile in March as packers operated near full capacity.
From the middle of March to early April, the spread between
boxed beef values and fed cattle prices increased from $34/
cwt. to $66/cwt. The spread averaged just under $21/cwt.
during 2016-2018.

3. During April and May, there were significant beef supply
disruptions as large numbers of plant workers contracted
COVID-19. Plant closures and slowdowns negatively impacted
beef production and packer demand for fed cattle. This
reduced demand for cattle may have contributed to lower fed
cattle prices.

4. An additional surge in consumer retail demand occurred in April
when consumers appeared to react to the possibility of beef
shortages in grocery stores. The supply disruptions and
additional surge in demand may have contributed to a sharp
increase in beef values. At the same time, packers
purchased fewer cattle as plant closures and slowdowns
increased. From early April until the second week of May,
the spread grew from $66/cwt. to over $279/cwt., a 323
percent increase.

5. In May, restaurants and other sections of the economy gradually
reopened and beef demand began to move back towards a more
normal mix between food service and retail grocery demand.
May also saw an easing in plant closures and slowdowns.
Boxed beef cutout values peaked in the second week of May
at $459/cwt. but declined to $298/cwt. by the first week of
June. Fed cattle prices rose from a 2020 low of $154/cwt.
in late April to $179/cwt. during the first week of June.
The spread narrowed from $279/cwt. in the middle of May to
$119/cwt. by the beginning of June. It is too early to
determine if spread will continue to narrow.
General Beef Industry Market Conditions Pre-Pandemic
USDA Market News collects industry data from a number of data
sources on boxed beef cutout values, fed cattle prices, and calculates
the spread between boxed beef cutout values and fed cattle prices. AMS
also collects data on the percentage of fed cattle purchase types and
beef production. These data are shown in Figures 1 through 6.
The Tyson Fresh Meats (Tyson) beef packing plant in Holcomb, Kansas
resumed processing live cattle in early December 2019 likely
alleviating concerns about tight slaughter capacity and allowing for a
return to seasonal patterns for cattle prices and boxed beef values in
early 2020 (Figures 1 and 2). Live and futures cattle prices remained
stable in January before tracking lower into February and mid-March
(Figure 1). Beef production outpaced 2019 levels (Figure 5) and boxed
beef values moved slightly lower from February into March (Figure 2).
The spread between Choice boxed beef cutout values and fed cattle
prices was relatively stable and averaged $17.44/cwt. from January
until the middle of March (Figure 3).
Market Reactions
The World Health Organization declared a COVID-19 pandemic on March
11, 2020, and a state of emergency was declared in the entirety of the
U.S. on March 13. Restrictions on travel and social gatherings ensued.
Beef production, prices, and the spread were likely impacted by sudden
changes in beef demand patterns during the rest of March as consumers
increased retail beef demand by apparently stockpiling retail beef,
while food service demand declined dramatically as restaurants shifted
to take-out and delivery only.
Supply disruptions followed in April and May as large numbers of
plant workers became ill from COVID-19 and plants experienced closures
and production declines. News of the supply disruptions may have
spurred an additional surge in retail beef demand as consumers may have
become concerned about beef shortages and again stockpiled beef.
Currently, fewer plant closures and less severe slowdowns appear to be
easing the supply disruptions. The gradual reopening of restaurants
across the U.S. to in-person dining is currently prompting a shift back
to food service demand from retail demand.
Impact on Production, Prices, and Spreads--Changes in Beef Demand
(March)
The sudden changes in beef demand began in the middle of March as
public concerns about the pandemic increased and consumers appear to
have begun stocking up on retail beef as public health orders closed
restaurants to in-person dining. USDA's Economic Research Service (ERS)
acquires proprietary retail scanner data from Information Resources,
Inc. (IRI), a market research firm. The IRI scanner data show that
consumers increased their weekly retail purchases of beef by
approximately 66 and 77 percent for the weeks ending March 15 and March
22, respectively, compared to the same weeks in 2019.
Packers met this increased retail demand by increasing processing
volumes (Figure 5), including the addition of Saturday shifts. Actual
slaughter numbers collected by USDA's Food Safety and Inspection
Service and reported by AMS Market News show that actual slaughter
during the third week of March was over 660,000 head of cattle, and in
the last week of March, actual slaughter exceeded 684,000 head, 3.8
percent and 10.7 percent higher than the same weeks in 2019,
respectively. Despite the production increase, shortages of retail beef
for sale in grocery stores existed as packers reportedly were not able
to shift beef production and packaging quickly from food service to
retail grocery products.
The weekly average Choice boxed beef cutout value rose from $207/
cwt. in the middle of March to over $255/cwt. at the beginning of
April, an increase of approximately 23 percent (Figure 2). Packers
increased their beef production by increasing purchases of fed cattle,
possibly contributing to an increase in fed cattle prices. From mid-
March to early April, dressed fed cattle prices increased from $173/
cwt. to $189/cwt., an increase of just over nine percent (Figure 1).
Futures prices of fed cattle, however, declined over the same time
period. One possible reason for the decline is that the length and
severity of the pandemic and the markets' responses to its effects are
uncertain, which increases the risk of buying futures contracts. The
nearby weekly average futures price was over $109/cwt. for the week
ending March 6. By the first week of April, the futures price declined
to $95.90/cwt.
Rising boxed beef cutout values and fluctuating fed cattle prices
increased the spread during March. From mid-March to the beginning of
April, the spread increased by approximately 94 percent, from
approximately $34/cwt. to $66/cwt. The spread averaged just under $21/
cwt. during 2016-2018 (Figure 3). Beef packers were able to respond to
higher spreads by running plants at higher capacities in March. Also,
in March, packing plant employees had not yet been severely impacted by
COVID-19, a situation that changed in April.
Impact on Production, Prices, and Spreads--Supply Disruptions (April-
May)
Beginning in late March and early April, a large number of plant
workers contracted COVID-19. By mid-April, plant closures and slowdowns
from COVID-19 illnesses led to dramatic declines in beef production and
fed cattle demand. Plant closures and slowdowns increased through the
month and peaked at the end of April. The President invoked the Defense
Production Act on April 28 and ordered meat processors to remain open.
Plant closures and slowdowns eased throughout May.
During the last full week of March, beef production was 68 million
pounds higher than the same week in 2019, but was 180 million pounds
lower than the same week in 2019 by the last week of April, a year-
over-year decrease of 34 percent (Figure 5).\8\ Actual slaughter data
collected by USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service and reported by
AMS Market News show that weekly slaughter decreased from over 684,000
head at the end of March to under 439,000 at the end of April, a
decrease of 36 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Sourced from the Weekly Actual Slaughter Under Federal
Inspection (https://www.ams.usda.gov/mnreports/sj_ls711.txt) report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An additional surge in retail beef demand occurred in April when
consumers appeared to react to the possibility of beef shortages in
grocery stores. IRI scanner data show that consumers increased their
retail purchases of beef from the corresponding weeks during 2019 by
approximately 29 percent and 44 percent for the weeks ending April 19
and April 26, respectively. Grocery stores responded to shortages by
rationing sales and cutting promotions.
The beef supply disruption and the additional beef demand surge
contributed to further increases in boxed beef values. The weekly
average Choice boxed beef cutout value rose from approximately $255/
cwt. at the beginning of April to over $459/cwt. by the second week of
May, an increase of approximately 80 percent (Figure 2).
After the plant closures and slowdowns, packers purchased fewer fed
cattle, which likely contributed to decreased fed cattle prices. From
the beginning of April until the beginning of May, dressed fed cattle
prices decreased from $189/cwt. to $154/cwt., a decrease of over 18
percent (Figure 1) and a low price so far for 2020. As packer purchases
of fed cattle declined, cattle began backing up in feedlots leading to
higher carcass weights. The carcass weights of all grades of steers and
heifers reported by AMS Market News showed that carcass weights
averaged 914 pounds in the first week of April, peaked at 952 pounds in
the third week of April, and declined to just above 900 pounds in late
April into May. This is well above 2019 levels, which averaged 878
pounds in April.
The May USDA Cattle on Feed report shows that April marketings of
fed cattle to packers were down 24.3 percent from 2019. This follows a
13.1 percent increase in March from 2019 as reported in the March USDA
Cattle on Feed report. Feedlot placements by producers and feeders were
22 percent lower in April than in 2019.
The apparent changes in supply and demand in April and May occurred
as the spread reached record highs. From the beginning of April until
the third week of May, the spread rose from approximately $66/cwt. to
just over $279/cwt., an increase of approximately 323 percent (Figure
3) and the largest spread between the price of fed cattle and the price
of boxed beef since the inception of Mandatory Price Reporting in 2001.
Impact on Production, Prices, and Spreads--Gradual Reopening of the
Economy
By the end of May, all 50 states were in some phase of reopening
their economies, including restaurants to in-person dining. The gradual
reopening of the economy, restaurants in particular, shows a trend for
beef demand moving back towards a more normal mix between food service
and retail grocery demand. The gradual reopening of the economy also
occurred during a period of increased operating capacity due to
reductions in plant closures and slowdowns. The plant disruptions
peaked at the end of April and decreased throughout May.
In the second full week of May, boxed beef cutout values peaked at
approximately $459/cwt. but declined to $298/cwt. by the first week of
June (Figure 2). Dressed fed cattle prices increased from approximately
$154/cwt., during the last of week of April to $179/cwt. in the first
week of June, an increase of approximately 16 percent (Figure 1). The
increase in fed cattle prices occurred at the same time as the recovery
in the nearby cattle futures from $86.64/cwt. during the last week of
April to $100.35/cwt. during the last week of May before declining
again to $95.74 the first week of June.
As beef values declined and fed cattle prices increased, the spread
has narrowed. During the Afirst week of June, the spread narrowed to
approximately $119/cwt., down from approximately $279/cwt. during the
first and second weeks of May (Figure 3). This is a decrease of
approximately 57 percent, but the spread is still high by historical
standards. It is too early to determine if this trend will continue as
uncertainty persists over the recovery of the supply situation at beef
plants and the recovery of food service demand amid continued COVID-19
concerns and any continued effects.
Continued Vigilance
Findings thus far do not preclude the possibility that individual
entities or groups of entities violated the Packers and Stockyards Act
during the aftermath of the Tyson Holcomb fire and the COVID-19
pandemic. The investigation into potential violations under the Packers
and Stockyards Act is continuing.
USDA does not solely own investigatory authority over
anticompetitive practices in the meat packing industry and has been
engaged in discussions with the Department of Justice (DOJ) regarding
allegations of anticompetitive practices in the meat packing industry.
Should USDA find a violation of the Packers and Stockyards Act, it is
authorized to report the violation to DOJ for prosecution.
Figure 1. Average Weekly Negotiated Price--All Cattle Dressed Basis

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Weekly average negotiated cash basis prices for all cattle on
a dressed basis in dollars per cwt. comparing 2020 to 2019 and
to the 2016-2018 average.
Source: USDA Agricultural Marketing Service.
Figure 2. Weekly Choice Beef Cutout

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Weekly average negotiated Choice boxed beef cutout value on a
carcass basis in dollars per cwt. comparing 2020 to 2019 and to
the 2016-2018 average.
Source: USDA Agricultural Marketing Service.
Figure 3. Negotiated Choice Cutout/Cattle Price Spread

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The dollar difference between the weekly average negotiated
dressed basis Choice boxed beef cutout value and the weekly
average negotiated dressed basis price for live fed cattle.
Source: USDA Agricultural Marketing Service.
Figure 4. Fed Cattle--% Weekly Negotiated Cash Sales

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Weekly average percentage of negotiated fed cattle cash sales
of total fed cattle sales comparing 2020 to 2019 and to the
2016-2018 average and highlighting the immediate post-plant
closure period.
Source: USDA Agricultural Marketing Service.
Figure 5. Weekly Est. Federally Inspected Beef Production

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Source: USDA Agricultural Marketing Service.
Figure 6. Weekly Slaughter Cattle Purchase Type Breakdown

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Weekly average percentage by purchase type (negotiated cash,
formula net, forward contract, and negotiated grid).
Source: USDA Agricultural Marketing Service.
Other Considerations
The preceding summary of market conditions is only one component of
a larger discussion within the cattle, beef, and related industries
that share a common narrative about a highly concentrated meatpacking
sector. At the core of many of these discussions is the desire by many
market participants for improved price discovery, reinvigorated
competition, and a more transparent relationship between the prices for
live cattle and the resulting products.
Price Reporting and Transparency
USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) strives to alleviate
conjecture in the marketplace through its various market reporting
programs, including Livestock Mandatory Reporting (LMR). LMR, in
operation for nearly two decades, disseminates timely market
information to the public at no cost to its users. As LMR has become a
key source of information for many contracts and marketing agreements,
it is incumbent upon AMS to further leverage that authority to assist
in the marketing of America's cattle and beef--especially in ensuring
an even playing field for all participants regardless of size or
resource.
One of the underlying concerns about price discovery is the
declining number of participants in the negotiated cash market. As the
number of participants has diminished, confidentiality guidelines have
resulted in periods when prices cannot be reported in certain regions
(e.g., Colorado), leading to concerns about price transparency. Last
year, AMS commissioned economists at Kansas State and Iowa State
Universities to evaluate the current 5-Area Cattle Reporting regions.
Their findings pinpointed several ways to reduce the incidence of non-
reporting in LMR due to an inability to meet confidentiality guidelines
(See Appendix). A reduction in non-reporting will provide improved
price discovery. Most notably, a combination or reshuffling of
reporting regions--a change that could be made without legislative
action--could ultimately expand the market data released to the public.
However, there has not been industry consensus on such a recommendation
to date.
On a daily and weekly basis, AMS disseminates estimated and actual
slaughter information. through the Estimated Daily Livestock Slaughter,
and the Actual Weekly Livestock Slaughter, under Federal Inspection
reports [i]--giving the industry valued information on
supply and volume. With a majority of packers covered by AMS through
LMR, the accuracy of the estimated data report is high, usually under a
0.5% differential. The Actual Slaughter Under Federal Inspection report
is released two weeks after the estimated totals allowing time for FSIS
data collection and consolidation. Given the long history of the
accuracy of the daily slaughter estimates, USDA is exploring the idea
of no longer referring to the daily report as an ``estimate'' to
encourage the market's immediate use of the information. The daily
report would still be followed up with the confirmatory report using
FSIS data and would continue to include the highly sought-after
information in the current report regarding actual weights for cattle,
steers, and heifers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[i]\ https://www.ams.usda.gov/mnreports/sj_ls710.txt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMS has also explored a 14 day slaughter scheduled delivery
submission requirement through LMR, a precedent currently in place for
daily LMR swine reporting. An LMR cattle submission form change would
be required, to allow the capture of the slaughter schedule. Under this
scenario, beef packers could report daily the number of cattle
scheduled to be delivered for slaughter each day for the next 14
calendar days. A 14 day cattle slaughter schedule exhibits two
informative advantages over the current slaughter reports: (1) the data
is available several hours earlier each day, and (2) scheduled delivery
figures are provided for well beyond just the current slaughter day.
In light of steadily decreasing percentages of negotiated sales and
continued market volatility, USDA is also aware of a variety of
proposals by external stakeholders that would require packers to meet a
minimum threshold of purchases via negotiated cash trade. Likewise,
USDA is aware of the variety of concerns with these proposals and
potential unintended consequences throughout the industry, especially
if regional considerations are not adequately considered.
Such regional disparities might be addressed in part by tying the
minimum purchase thresholds to regional reporting abilities. Under this
approach, if an LMR region began to fail to meet confidentiality
guidelines due to packers not procuring cattle on a negotiated cash
basis, with the proper legislative authority, AMS could track and
inform packers of the requirement to make an additional percentage of
such purchases in the following week to allow for reporting. This would
not place further reporting burden on packers as AMS Market News
already receives data from beef packers on both a company and plant
basis, broken down by purchase type, including negotiated cash sales.
Computer programming could be implemented to more readily track
negotiated cash sales as a percentage of company or plant purchases. If
Congress did provide this additional authority, careful consideration
must be given to the time period in which the purchase requirement
would apply.
In an effort to promote price transparency, private and industry
groups have long worked to develop an online platform to encourage the
negotiated marketing of fed cattle. However, the platform has struggled
to attain significant packer participation. Exercise of the new
authorities contemplated above could support the effort by driving
increased participation.
Beyond the scope of LMR, the concept of creating and compensating a
pool of negotiated cash market traders has been explored by some in
academia and industry. With further development and discussion, the
idea may prove an innovative and flexible approach to solving the
public good problem of a lack of reliable price discovery.
Risk Management Solutions
Small- and medium-sized producers could better position themselves
to more effectively negotiate sales with packers and compete with large
producers if they had better access to risk management training. For
example, cattle feeders that hedged (sold a futures contract) when they
placed cattle on feed prior to the pandemic were able to mitigate the
steep decline in live cattle prices after the pandemic by closing their
hedge (buying a futures contract at a lower price) at a profit. Small-
and medium-sized producers could also benefit from products tailored
specifically for operations of their size. USDA, the Commodity Futures
Trading Commission (CFTC), the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME), and
relevant producer groups could partner to offer outreach and education
opportunities and could also explore the alteration of existing futures
contracts and the development of new contracts or derivatives
specifically designed to level the playing field between large
producers--who have greater access to information and capital--and
small- and medium-sized producers. A straightforward example is
reducing the number of pounds per CME feeder and live cattle contract,
currently at 50,000 and 40,000 respectively, to a lower number of
pounds to give small- and medium-sized producers additional flexibility
in managing their risk through hedging strategies. New products like a
boxed beef contract could also be considered that place commercial
participants' interests in a more balanced position with those of
speculators and managed money.
Additionally, USDA's Risk Management Agency (RMA) currently offers
plans to protect against gross margin losses for fed cattle (Livestock
Gross Margin) and price declines for feeder and fed cattle (Livestock
Risk Protection). The Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Board of
Directors (Board) recently approved changes for both of these products
to make them more affordable and accessible to producers. Improved risk
management products could allow small- and medium-sized producers to
compete more effectively with large producers and weather market
disruptions caused by events such as COVD-19 that have a
disproportionate impact on small- and medium-sized producers.
Small Processor and Cooperative Opportunities
USDA further recognizes there are many discussions about reducing
the burden for smaller meat processors, asserting that the high cost of
compliance with Federal requirements are barriers to entry and/or
survival. USDA's utmost goal through the Food Safety and Inspection
Service's work is to protect food safety, and as a result, the agency
has dedicated significant resources to outreach, education and
technical assistance for these small businesses. Additionally, pursuant
the 2018 Farm Bill, the Food Safety and Inspection Service is working
with a third-party to review and improve upon the effectiveness of the
agency's guidance and outreach to small and very small meat processors.
The current pandemic has also created a resurgence in demand for
services provided by these small and very small processors, and for
consumers who are interested in buying their meat more directly from
the farm and ranch where it was raised. We understand the addition of
direct-to-consumer options for beef producers, small processors,
retailers, and others must be done in a way that does not compromise
federal food safety standards or create disruption with our trading
partners. USDA is committed to working with stakeholders to balance
food safety with these growing consumer preferences and growing e-
commerce platforms.
While USDA's Rural Development (RD) programs does not offer a loan
or grant program specific to meat processors, a number of loan
guarantee and grant programs administered by RD can provide assistance
to small and very small meat processors looking to develop or expand
their business. RD loan guarantees can be used by individuals,
businesses, or cooperatives for: acquisition, conversion, enlargement,
repair, modernization, development, purchase of equipment, leasehold
improvements, machinery, supplies, or inventory.
The cooperative model (co-op) has long been an option for producer
collaboration to enhance marketing power. Small scale application of
the co-op model has also proven successful in providing small producers
access to processing services in limited instances. However, large
scale co-op meat processing facilities have historically struggled to
reach sustainable levels of profitability. USDA's Rural Cooperative
Development Grant funds centers for co-op development across the
country that can offer technical assistance in organizing and forming a
co-op. USDA also maintains a library of educational resources on a wide
range of co-op operation topics.
P&S Act Updates and Enforcement
In January, USDA issued a proposed rule to establish criteria the
Secretary would consider when determining whether an undue or
unreasonable preference or advantage has occurred in violation of the
Packers and Stockyards Act (P&S Act). The proposed rule acknowledged
current court precedent regarding the consideration of harm to
competition when determining if a preference or advantage violates the
Act, but also provided the Secretary four criteria for careful
consideration and the option to consider additional factors as
warranted. USDA is currently reviewing the 2,351 comments received in
response to the proposal as it works to finalize the rule.
Beyond rulemaking, small- and medium-sized producers could also
benefit from updates to the P&S Act designed to offset the impacts of
operating in a concentrated industry, where the market power resides
with large meatpackers. Smaller producers often find themselves to be
price takers in the market for fed cattle and lack the volume of larger
producers to negotiate unique and advantageous marketing agreements
with large meatpackers.
In efforts to address this imbalance, there has been discussion of
creating a beef contract library similar to the swine contract library
USDA currently maintains pursuant to Section 222 of the P&S Act.
Amending the P&S Act to develop a similar library for beef transactions
could help increase price discovery in cattle markets and enhance
access to market information for all market participants, regardless of
size.
Interested stakeholders and legislators may also consider targeted
amendments to the P&S Act that would provide USDA with investigative
and enforcement tools on par with those of our Federal partners. For
example, the ability to issue Civil Investigative Demands (``CIDs'')
with respect to unfair or deceptive acts or practices would bring
USDA's authorities in line with those of the Federal Trade Commission
(FTC) and DOJ. While subpoenas are useful, the additional authority to
require written reports and answers to questions could be very
beneficial in certain investigations. Amendments to elevate certain
packer conduct to criminal violations and provide the Secretary with
the tools necessary to carry out appropriate criminal investigations
may also be ripe for consideration.
Conclusion
It is important that any proposals aimed at addressing these
complex issues and others associated with the market disruptions caused
by the Holcomb fire and COVID-19 receive careful consideration and
thorough vetting given their potential to affect everyone whose
livelihood depends on the sale of cattle, beef, or related products.
USDA stands ready to assist stakeholders and policymakers as they
continue to explore options to improve price discovery, level the
playing field between producers and large meatpackers in negotiating
prices and procurement methods, and to foster a more transparent
relationship between the prices for live cattle and the resulting
products.
Appendix: Price Discovery through Livestock Mandatory Reporting
Price discovery in the cattle markets has been a major concern for
decades and a driving force behind the enactment of The Livestock
Mandatory Reporting Act of 1999. Livestock Mandatory Reporting (LMR)
applies to slaughter cattle, swine, sheep, boxed beef, lamb meat, and
wholesale pork. LMR was implemented in 2001, reauthorized in 2006,
2010, and 2015. Currently, LMR is set to expire September 30, 2020.
Who and what is subject to Livestock Mandatory Reporting?
For cattle reporting, federally inspected packing plants that
annually slaughter or process an average of 125,000 cattle are required
to report information. Packers must report information of all
transactions involving the purchases of slaughter cattle. Data on the
prices and quantities of livestock and livestock products are reported
on a daily and weekly basis. The cattle transaction types include:

Negotiated purchase (spot market purchase): A price is
determined through buyer and seller interaction, and the cattle
are scheduled for delivery within 30 days of the agreement.

Forward Contract purchase: An agreed upon price is scheduled
ahead of slaughter, and a base price is tied to price quotes in
the futures market.

Negotiated Grid purchase: A base price is determined through
buyer and seller interaction within 14 days of delivery, but
the final net price includes premiums and discounts.

Formula purchase: An advanced agreement of cattle delivery
that does not utilize the purchase methods above.

Packer-owned: Owned by the packer for more than 14 days.

Cattle data are aggregated to the national level as well as several
regions: Texas-Oklahoma-New Mexico, Kansas, Nebraska, Colorado, Iowa-
Minnesota, and 5-Area (composed of the five regions included in this
list).
When is data excluded from reporting?
Data may not be published due to confidentiality issues. To publish
an LMR report, the data must meet the 3/70/20 confidentiality
guideline, which requires the following:

At least three reporting entities need to provide data at
least 50 percent of the time over the most recent 60-day time
period.

No single reporting entity may provide more than 70 percent
of the data for a report over the most recent 60-day time
period.

No single reporting entity may be the sole reporting entity
for an individual report more than 20 percent of the time over
most recent 60-day time period.

Additionally, for daily purchases of slaughter steers and heifers,
transaction lots with 10 head or less are excluded.
What is Livestock Mandatory Reporting's Impact on Price Discovery?
Several studies have taken place since the inception of LMR,
evaluating its impact on livestock markets. A 2015 study by Matthews
and colleagues analyzed the discovery of livestock market prices. The
study concluded that LMR increased the flow of market information,
leading to better informed markets. Boyer and Brorsen (2013) studied
the impact of LMR on beef markets and concluded that if price
uncertainty is reduced for packers, then cattle feeders benefit from
increased competition by the packers. An earlier work of Azzam (2003)
reported that LMR could assist with increasing competitiveness in
livestock marketings. Last, the 2018 Report to Congress on Livestock
Mandatory Reporting found that during the October 2013 Government
Shutdown, livestock markets were deeply affected by the lack of LMR.
For example, the CME Group suspended its feeder cattle index, and
private sector economic analysis was stifled due to the lack of LMR
during the shutdown (Agricultural Marketing Service, 2018).

Appendix References

Azzam, A. 2003. ``Market Transparency and Market Structure: The
Livestock Mandatory Reporting Act of 1999.'' American Journal of
Agricultural Economics 85(2): 387-395.
Agricultural Marketing Service, United States Department of
Agriculture. 2018. Report to Congress: Livestock Mandatory Reporting.
Boyer, C.N. and B.W. Brorsen. 2013. ``Changes in Beef Packers'
Market Power after the Livestock Mandatory Price Reporting Act: An
Agent-based Auction.'' American Journal of Agricultural Economics 95:
859-876
Mathews, Kenneth H., Jr., W. Brorsen, W.F. Hahn, C. Arnade, and E.
Dohlman. September 2015. Mandatory Price Reporting, Market Efficiency,
and Price Discovery in Livestock Markets. LDPM-25401, U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Economic Research Service

______

Submitted Report by Hon. Al Lawson, Jr., a Representative in Congress
from Florida
Food Insecurity: Better Information Could Help Eligible College
Students Access Federal Food Assistance Benefits
December 2018
GAO-19-95
GAO Highlights
Highlights of GAO-19-95,[1] a report to Congressional
requesters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[1]\ https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-95.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why GAO Did This Study
Increasing evidence indicates that some college students are
experiencing food insecurity, which can negatively impact their
academic success. However, college students are only eligible for SNAP
in certain cases. Given the substantial Federal investment in higher
education and the risk posed if students do not complete their degrees,
GAO was asked to review food insecurity among college students.
This report examines (1) what is known about the extent of food
insecurity among college students and their use of SNAP; (2) how
selected colleges are addressing student food insecurity; and (3) the
extent to which Federal programs assist students experiencing food
insecurity. GAO reviewed relevant Federal laws and agency documents and
studies on student food insecurity; analyzed 2016 Federal student data
(the most recent available), and visited four states, selected based on
actions taken to address student food insecurity, geographic diversity,
and other factors. GAO interviewed researchers; officials from
Education, FNS national and regional offices; and officials at 14
colleges, including students at eight of these colleges. GAO also
emailed all state SNAP agencies about their efforts related to
students.
What GAO Recommends
GAO recommends that FNS (1) improve student eligibility information
on its website and (2) share information on state SNAP agencies'
approaches to help eligible students. FNS partially concurred, and
plans to review its information. GAO continues to believe additional
action is warranted, as discussed in the report.
View GAO-19-95.[2] For more information, contact Kathryn
Larin at (202) 512-7215 or larink@gao.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[2]\ https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-95.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What GAO Found
There is limited information about the national prevalence of food
insecurity among college students. GAO reviewed 31 studies that
identified a wide range of food insecurity rates among the students
studied, but the studies did not provide national estimates. College
students at risk of food insecurity may be eligible for benefits from
the Food and Nutrition Service's (FNS) Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP). However, GAO's analysis of Department of
Education (Education) data shows that almost two million at-risk
students who were potentially eligible for SNAP did not report
receiving benefits in 2016. According to GAO's analysis, having a low
income is the most common risk factor for food insecurity among college
students. Among low-income students, most have one additional risk
factor associated with food insecurity, such as being a first-
generation student or a single parent.
The 14 selected colleges that GAO contacted were addressing student
food insecurity in a number of ways. For example, all 14 were providing
free food to students through on-campus food pantries, and most were
offering emergency funds to help students pay for living expenses that
might otherwise force them to choose between buying food or staying in
school. Many of these colleges had centralized student services to
better address their students' basic needs and provide other support,
such as screening students for potential eligibility and helping them
apply for Federal benefit programs like SNAP.
Selected Colleges' Initiatives to Address Student Food Insecurity

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Source: Information from colleges GAO contacted. D GAO-19-95

Federal student aid generally does not cover all college costs for
low-income students, and college students may have limited access to
Federal food assistance programs such as SNAP because of program
eligibility restrictions. Some state SNAP agencies reported that they
are taking steps to help students access SNAP by conducting outreach to
colleges and developing guidance. Nevertheless, at 9 of the 14 colleges
GAO contacted, some college officials and students said that they were
unfamiliar with or did not fully understand SNAP's student eligibility
rules. Some college officials said that they would like information
from FNS to better explain SNAP student rules, but FNS has not made
such information easily accessible on its website. Further, college
officials and state SNAP agencies noted that FNS does not share
examples of actions taken by other states to help eligible students
access SNAP. Clarification of SNAP student eligibility rules and
enhanced information sharing about state efforts could help ensure that
potentially eligible college students can access Federal food
assistance programs.
Contents
Letter

Background
Information about the Prevalence of Food Insecurity among College
Students Nationally is Limited and Many Potentially Eligible, At-Risk
Students Do Not Receive SNAP
Selected Colleges Are Using a Range of Approaches to Address
Student Food Insecurity
While SNAP Can Supplement Other Federal Aid for Some Low-Income
Students, FNS Does Not Share Key Information to Help States Better
Leverage SNAP to Assist Students
Conclusions
Recommendations for Executive Action
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

Tables

Table 1: Prevalence of Risk Factors Associated with Food Insecurity
among Low-Income U.S. College Undergraduate Students, by College Type
in 2016
Table 2: Prevalence of Risk Factors Associated with Food Insecurity
among Low-Income U.S. College Undergraduate Students in 2016
Table 3: Studies Included in GAO's Review That Estimate College
Student Food Insecurity
Table 4: Risk Factors Identified by GAO Associated with Food
Insecurity Among College Students
Table 5. Selected Risk Factors and Corresponding Variables in the
2016 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study Data Set
Table 6: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
Eligibility Exemptions for College Students and Corresponding Variables
in the 2016 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study Data Set
Table 7: List of 2 and 4 year Selected Colleges that GAO Contacted,
by State

Figures

Figure 1: Percentages and Characteristics of Traditional and
Nontraditional College Students in 2016
Figure 2: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
Participation among Low-Income College Students At-Risk of Food
Insecurity in 2016
Figure 3: Initiatives by Selected Colleges to Address Student Food
Insecurity
Figure 4: Pictures of Food Pantries from GAO Site Visits to
Selected Colleges

Abbreviations

Education U.S. Department of Education
E&T Employment and Training
FAFSA Free Application for Federal Student Aid
FNS Food and Nutrition Service
NPSAS National Postsecondary Student Aid Study
SNAP Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to
copyright protection in the United States. The published
product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety
without further permission from GAO. However, because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission
from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to
reproduce this material separately.

December 21, 2018

The Honorable Debbie Stabenow,
Ranking Member,
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry,
United States Senate;

The Honorable Patty Murray,
Ranking Member,
Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions,
United States Senate;

The Honorable Edward J. Markey,
United States Senate;

The Honorable Elizabeth Warren,
United States Senate.

In Fiscal Year 2017, the Federal Government spent over $122 billion
in grants, loans, and work-study funds through Federal student aid
programs to help make college accessible to students.\1\ This
substantial Federal investment in higher education is at risk if
college students drop out because they cannot afford basic necessities
like food. The Federal Government also spent $98 billion in Fiscal Year
2017 on nutrition assistance programs, including $68 billion on the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the nation's largest
nutrition assistance program, to combat food insecurity. College
students enrolled at least half time, however, are generally not
eligible for SNAP benefits unless they fall into certain categories
designed to more narrowly target students in need of assistance.
According to some studies, college students who experience food
insecurity, which the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) defines as
the condition of limited or uncertain access to adequate food, may also
experience decreased academic performance, symptoms of depression and
anxiety, and other negative mental health indicators.\2\ In light of
the potential obstacles to college students' academic success posed by
lack of access to adequate food, you asked us to review the issue of
food insecurity among college students.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For this report, we define Federal student aid programs as
financial aid programs authorized under Title IV of the Higher
Education Act of 1965, as amended, Pub. L. No. 89-329, Title IV, 79
Stat. 1219 (codified at 20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.). These include the
William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan, the Federal Pell Grant, and the
Federal Work-Study programs.
\2\ See Suzanna M. Martinez, Edward A. Frongillo, Cindy Leung, and
Lorrene Ritchie, ``No Food for Thought: Food Insecurity is Related to
Poor Mental Health and Lower Academic Performance among Students in
California's Public University System,'' Journal of Health Psychology
(June 25, 2018), accessed at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/
10.1177/1359105318783028; Maya E. Maroto, Anastasia Snelling, and Henry
Linck, ``Food Insecurity among Community College Students: Prevalence
and Association with Grade Point Average,'' Community College Journal
of Research and Practice, vol. 39, no. 6 (2015); Megan M. Patton-Lopez,
Daniel F. Lopez-Cevallos, Doris I. Cancel-Tirado, and Leticia Vazquez,
``Prevalence and Correlates of Food Insecurity among Students Attending
a Midsize Rural University in Oregon,'' Journal of Nutrition Education
and Behavior, vol. 46, no. 3 (2014); Meg Bruening, Stephanie
Brennhofer, Irene van Woerden, Michael Todd, and Melissa Laska,
``Factors Related to the High Rates of Food Insecurity among Diverse,
Urban College Freshmen,'' Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and
Dietetics, vol. 116, no. 9 (2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This report examines: (1) what is known about the extent of food
insecurity among college students and their use of SNAP; (2) how
selected colleges are addressing student food insecurity; and (3) the
extent to which Federal programs assist college students experiencing
food insecurity.
To determine what is known about the extent of food insecurity
among college students, we conducted an in-depth review of studies. To
be included, studies had to: (1) be based on research conducted in and
published in the United States; (2) be published after 2007; and (3)
contain original, direct estimates of food insecurity rates among
college students. We identified 35 studies that met these criteria, but
subsequently eliminated four of these from our in-depth review due to
concerns about their methodological limitations. We reviewed and
summarized the remaining 31 studies.
We also analyzed National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS)
data from the 2015-2016 academic year, the most recent year available,
to estimate the prevalence of risk factors for food insecurity among
college students. Nationally representative survey data that would
support direct estimates of the prevalence of food insecurity among
college students do not currently exist. However, the National Center
for Education Statistics at the Department of Education (Education)
regularly collects NPSAS data, which contain nationally representative,
detailed demographic and financial data about college students.\3\ We
assessed the reliability of the NPSAS data by reviewing existing
information about the data and the system that produced them and by
interviewing agency officials knowledgeable about the data. As a
result, we determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the
purposes of this report. We identified risk factors associated with
food insecurity through a literature review and through interviews with
academic researchers, college officials, state and Federal officials,
and relevant policy organizations. We also analyzed NPSAS data to
estimate SNAP participation among potentially eligible students.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ NPSAS data are based on a nationally representative sample of
college students. Data are collected from multiple sources, including
school records and government databases, as well as student interviews.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To understand how selected colleges address student food
insecurity, we conducted site visits in California, Kentucky,
Massachusetts, and Michigan. We selected a geographically diverse group
of states where colleges or state SNAP agencies were actively
addressing food insecurity among college students. In selecting these
states, we reviewed literature and asked researchers we interviewed
about colleges and states that were actively addressing food insecurity
on campus. In each state, we met with administrators, faculty, and
students at selected 2 and 4 year public colleges and with officials
from the state agencies that administer the SNAP program and other
relevant organizations. Overall, we contacted 14 colleges--seven 2 year
and seven 4 year colleges--that were actively addressing food
insecurity among their students.\4\ We also interviewed researchers and
staff at policy organizations knowledgeable about SNAP and college
student food insecurity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ We visited 12 colleges as a part of our site visits and
conducted telephone interviews with officials at 2 colleges in other
states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To assess the extent to which Federal programs assist college
students experiencing food insecurity, we reviewed relevant Federal
laws, regulations, and agency guidance and program documents. We
emailed the 51 state SNAP agency directors (all 50 states and the
District of Columbia) to ask whether their state agency is taking any
action to address college student food insecurity and received
responses from 50 of them.\5\ We interviewed state SNAP agency
directors in our site visit states of California, Kentucky,
Massachusetts, and Michigan, as well as in Washington because of its
innovative partnerships with colleges. We also interviewed USDA Food
and Nutrition Service (FNS) officials at the national office as well as
at four of the seven FNS regional offices.\6\ We compared FNS's
communication and information sharing activities against Federal
internal control standards. Further details on our methodology are
available in appendix I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Michigan's state SNAP agency did not respond to our email.
However, we interviewed the Michigan state SNAP agency director during
the course of our review and incorporated the state's actions to
address student food insecurity into our report, as appropriate.
\6\ We interviewed the four FNS regional offices that are
responsible for oversight of our site visit states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We conducted this performance audit from July 2017 to December 2018
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Background
The Federal Government, states, colleges, students and their
families all play important roles in financing higher education
costs.\7\ Under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as
amended, the Federal Government offers students at all types of
colleges financial assistance to help pay for their education, such as
through the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan (Federal Direct Loan),
the Federal Pell Grant (Pell Grant), and the Federal Work-Study
programs. Some of this aid is targeted toward students based on their
financial need. For example, Education provided almost $27 billion in
Pell Grants to low-income students in Fiscal Year 2017. States also
provide funding to public colleges through state appropriations for
operating expenses and grant programs that provide financial aid
directly to students based on financial need, merit, or a combination
of both. Despite the substantial Federal expenditure in higher
education, rising college costs have outpaced Federal and state grant
aid and, over time, have led to an increasing share of the cost being
borne by students and their families. For example, over the past 30
years, the average in-state net price for a full-time undergraduate
student at a public 4 year college--after taking into account all grant
aid and education tax benefits--has nearly doubled, from about $8,000
in 1990-1991 to nearly $15,000 in 2017-2018. At public 2 year colleges,
the net price for full-time students increased over the same time
period from about $6,800 to $8,000.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ For purposes of this report, ``colleges'' include 2 and 4 year
degree-granting institutions as well as those that provide technical
training in certificate programs of shorter duration. Unless otherwise
noted, ``college students'' refers to undergraduates enrolled in one of
these institutions.
\8\ Net price is the cost of college per student after all
financial aid and education tax benefits are taken into account. This
figure includes tuition, fees, room, and board (the cost of food). To
increase transparency about college costs and help students make
informed decisions about which college they can afford, the Federal
Government requires all colleges that are authorized to disburse
Federal financial aid to annually publish on their website a net price
calculator. These figures are collected and published in Sandy Baum,
Jennifer Ma, Matea Pender, and Meredith Welch, Trends in Student Aid
2017 (New York: The College Board, October 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To plan for the cost of college, students and their families must
consider the full cost of attendance, which includes not only tuition
and fees, but also room and board and other miscellaneous expenses.\9\
The Federal Government requires colleges to estimate and distribute
information on the full cost of attendance to prospective and enrolled
students. The amount of need-based Federal aid a student is eligible
for is based, in part, upon the school's estimated cost of attendance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Room costs include an allowance for living expenses for
students who do not live on campus. Miscellaneous expenses may include
allowances for books, supplies, transportation, loan fees, and, if
applicable, dependent care.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes in College Student Demographics
National data show that, over the past several decades, an
increasing percentage of students from low-income households are
enrolling in college. According to NPSAS data, the percentage of all
undergraduates who had a household income at or below 130 percent of
the Federal poverty line increased from 28 percent in 1996 to 39
percent in 2016.\10\ In addition, the percentage of college students
receiving a Pell Grant has nearly doubled over roughly the same time
period. For example, in 1999-2000, approximately 23 percent of college
students received a Pell Grant, and in 2016, this figure was about 40
percent.\11\ Some researchers have suggested that reductions in Federal
and state funding of higher education relative to the increasing cost
of college have coupled with these student demographics to increase the
share of college costs borne by students, which can reduce the amount
students have to support their basic needs, such as food and
housing.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ These results are within a +/-1 percentage point margin of
error. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics, 1995-1996 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study
(NPSAS:96); and 2015-2016 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study
(NPSAS:16).
\11\ U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics, Trends in Pell Grant Receipt and the Characteristics of
Pell Grant Recipients: Selected Years, 1999-2000 to 2011-2012, NCES
2015-601 (Washington, D.C.: September 2015); and 2015-2016 National
Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:16).
\12\ See, for example, Amy Ellen Duke-Benfield, Bolstering Non-
Traditional Student Success: A Comprehensive Student Aid System Using
Financial Aid, Public Benefits, and Refundable Tax Credits (Washington,
D.C.: Center for Law and Social Policy, December 2015); Sara Goldrick-
Rab, Katharine Broton, and Daniel Eisenberg, Hungry to Learn:
Addressing Food and Housing Insecurity among Undergraduates (Madison:
Wisconsin HOPE Lab, December 2015); Sara Goldrick-Rab, Jed Richardson,
and Anthony Hernandez, Hungry and Homeless in College: Results from a
National Study of Basic Needs Insecurity in Higher Education (Madison:
Wisconsin HOPE Lab, March 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A traditional college student is generally considered to be someone
who is enrolled in college full time immediately after graduating from
high school, is financially dependent on his or her parents, and either
does not work during the school year or works part time.\13\ However,
these students represent a minority of students enrolled in college
today. According to NPSAS data, about half of all undergraduate
students enrolled in college in 2016 were considered financially
independent from their parents. About 22 percent had dependent children
themselves, and 14 percent were single parents. The average college
student in 2016 was 26 years old and first enrolled at age 21. Sixty-
four percent of college students in 2016 worked at least part time
while enrolled, and \1/4\ worked full time. See figure 1 for the
percentages of traditional and nontraditional students in 2016 and for
Education's list of traditional and nontraditional student
characteristics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics, Findings from the Condition of Education, 2002:
Nontraditional Undergraduates, NCES 2002-012 (Washington, D.C.: 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 1: Percentages and Characteristics of Traditional and
Nontraditional College Students in 2016

Source: GAO analysis of 2016 National Postsecondary Student
Aid Study data from the U.S. Department of Education. D GAO-19-
95.
Note: Categories of traditional and nontraditional students
are based on the Department of Education's definition. All
results are within a +/-2 percentage point margin of error.
Federal Food Assistance Programs Available to College Students
FNS oversees the states' administration of SNAP, the main Federal
benefit program to address food insecurity for low-income households.
In Fiscal Year 2017, the program provided benefits to about 42 million
individuals in more than 20 million households. The purpose of the SNAP
program is to safeguard the health and well-being of the nation's
population by providing a monthly cash benefit to raise the purchasing
power and nutrition level of low-income households. FNS is responsible
for establishing program regulations and ensuring that state officials
administer SNAP in compliance with program rules. Officials in seven
FNS regional offices assist officials from the FNS national office in
this oversight work. FNS shares information and policy guidance with
state SNAP agencies in part through its regional offices, the FNS
website, and annual conferences. The states, or in some cases counties
within a state, administer SNAP by determining whether households meet
the program's eligibility requirements, calculating monthly benefits
for qualified households, issuing benefits to participants on an
electronic benefits transfer card, and investigating and prosecuting
recipient fraud. States are also allowed to establish some state-
specific modifications in how they administer SNAP policy.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ SNAP's statutes, regulations, and waivers provide state SNAP
agencies with various policy options. State SNAP agencies use this
flexibility to adapt their programs to meet the needs of eligible, low-
income households in their states. See U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Food and Nutrition Service, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program,
State Options Report, 14th Edition (Washington, D.C.: May 31, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beyond SNAP, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women,
Infants, and Children (WIC) is another Federal food assistance program
available to eligible college students who are pregnant or
postpartum.\15\ FNS also oversees the WIC program, which is
administered by state and local agencies through approximately 10,000
clinic sites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ WIC is designed to improve the health and nutritional well-
being of pregnant and postpartum women, infants, and young children by
providing nutritious supplemental foods, nutrition education, and
referrals to health and social service programs. Pregnant and
postpartum women and children up to age 5 are eligible if they are
found to be at nutritional risk and have incomes below a certain
threshold. WIC participants typically receive food benefits in the form
of vouchers or coupons that they redeem at authorized retail vendors to
obtain, at no cost, certain approved foods, including infant formula.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
College Student Eligibility for SNAP
SNAP eligibility is largely based on a household's income and
certain other characteristics.\16\ However, in 1980 Federal law
restricted college students who are enrolled at least half time from
receiving SNAP benefits.\17\ This law generally prevents traditional
college students--who may appear to have a low income while attending
college but receive financial support from their parents--from
receiving SNAP benefits. Federal law establishes several exemptions to
this restriction so that college students who are enrolled at least
half time and have a legitimate need can access SNAP.\18\ For example,
assuming that they meet all other SNAP eligibility criteria, a full-
time college student may be exempt from the college student restriction
if they are:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ In general, SNAP defines a household as persons living
together who purchase food and prepare meals together for home
consumption. Some people who live together are included in the same
household even if they purchase and prepare meals separately, such as
spouses and children under 22 living with their parents. Some Federal
program benefits are included as income when determining a household's
SNAP eligibility, while a household may deduct certain expenses from
the income used to calculate their eligibility for SNAP, such as those
for dependent care if the care enables a household member to work or
enroll in training or education.
\17\ Food Stamp Act Amendments of 1980, Pub. L. No. 96-249, Title
I, 139, 94 Stat. 357, 370. The statutory language restricts access to
SNAP benefits for individuals enrolled half time or more in an
institution of higher education. 7 U.S.C. 2015(e). An individual is
considered to be enrolled in an institution of higher education if the
individual is enrolled in a business, technical, trade, or vocational
school that normally requires a high school diploma or equivalency
certificate for enrollment in the curriculum or if the individual is
enrolled in a regular curriculum at a college or university that offers
degree programs regardless of whether a high school diploma is
required. For the purposes of discussing student access to SNAP
benefits in this report, we will refer to these individuals as college
students.
\18\ Throughout this report we refer to these as student
eligibility exemptions. Students who meet one of these student
eligibility exemptions do not automatically qualify for SNAP--they must
still apply for SNAP and meet the household income and asset limits,
among other eligibility criteria, to be determined eligible to receive
SNAP benefits.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
younger than age 18 or age 50 or older;

a parent caring for a child under age 6;

a parent caring for a child aged 6 to 11 who is unable to
obtain childcare to attend school and work;

a single parent caring for a child under 12 years old and
enrolled full time;

working a minimum of 20 hours per week at paid employment;

participating in a state- or federally-financed work-study
program;

receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
benefits; \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ TANF is a block grant to states to help meet the needs of low-
income families. The program emphasizes work and time-limited cash
assistance and gives states wide discretion on how to use TANF funds,
including for various noncash services.

not physically or mentally fit (e.g., have a disability);
\20\ or
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ For ease of reference, in this report we use the term
``disability'' to refer to this student eligibility exemption.

enrolled in certain programs for the purpose of employment
and training.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ 7 U.S.C. 2015(e)(3).

FNS officials told us that states have flexibility regarding which
programs may qualify a student for the exemption pertaining to
enrollment in certain programs for the purpose of employment and
training. These programs must be operated by a state or local
government, target low-income households, and increase participants'
employability. State SNAP agencies have discretion to determine which
programs in their state qualify.\22\ These employment and training
programs may be operated at community colleges, among other community
partners.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ 7 CFR 273.5(b)(11)(iv). The law also states that programs
must be at least equivalent to a state SNAP Employment and Training
(E&T) program service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FNS officials said that in 2014 the agency expanded its focus on
SNAP Employment & Training (E&T) program services, which are intended
to help individuals in SNAP households acquire skills, training, and
work experience that will increase their ability to obtain regular
employment that will ultimately lead to greater self-sufficiency and
reduce their reliance on SNAP.\23\ State agencies have flexibility in
designing SNAP E&T program services, and FNS encourages states to enter
into partnerships with established providers, including community
colleges, to deliver SNAP E&T program services.\24\ For example, a SNAP
recipient could train to become a Certified Nursing Assistant at a
community college as part of a state's SNAP E&T program. In addition to
providing employment and training services, state SNAP E&T programs are
required to provide participants with necessary supportive services,
such as transportation, childcare, and textbooks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ We recently reported on the performance of the SNAP E&T
Program. See GAO, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: More
Complete and Accurate Information Needed on Employment and Training
Programs, GAO-19-56 (https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-56)
(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 20, 2018).
\24\ A provision in the 2014 Farm Bill clarified that SNAP E&T
program services must meet the criteria for a career or technical
education program outlined in the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical
Education Act (Perkins Act). For the purposes of the Perkins Act, a
career or technical education program is defined at 20 U.S.C. 2302.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Information about the Prevalence of Food Insecurity among College
Students Nationally is Limited and Many Potentially Eligible,
At-Risk Students Do Not Receive SNAP
Studies Identify a Range of Food Insecurity Rates among Respondents,
but Results Cannot Be Generalized to All Students
Our review of 31 studies provided some information regarding food
insecurity among college students, but all of the studies have
limitations and none provide estimates of food insecurity for this
population in general.\25\ Estimates of food insecurity among college
students included in the studies we reviewed ranged from nine percent
to well over 50 percent, with 22 of these of 31 studies estimating food
insecurity rates of over 30 percent.\26\ These results reflect the
studies' different samples and methods, and the estimates from the
studies included in our review are not generalizable to the college
student population as a whole. None of these studies are based on a
sufficiently large or diverse random sample of college students to
constitute a representative study. The studies addressed the difficulty
of sampling the college student population in different ways, including
by extrapolating from household data, surveying students in a
particular degree program or on a particular campus, or targeting
particular, non-random sub-groups of the college student population.
Most of the studies were also conducted on only one campus, although
some studies gathered data from more than one campus.\27\ Despite the
limitations, these studies as a whole help shed some light on the range
of food insecurity that exists among some groups of college students.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ We included studies that had been published in U.S. journals
from January 2007 through August 2018, covered college students in the
United States, and contained original, direct estimates of food
insecurity among college students.
\26\ USDA has developed three questionnaires containing 6, 10, and
18 questions, respectively, to measure household food insecurity. All
but three of the studies in our review adapted the questions from
either the 6, 10, or 18 question USDA questionnaire to measure food
insecurity among individual students. Depending on how many questions
respondents answer affirmatively, they were designated as being either
food-secure, having low food security, or having very low food
security. Those with either low or very low food security were termed
``food-insecure.''
\27\ Of the 31 studies included in our review, eight had survey
respondents from multiple college campuses or across university
systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of the 31 studies we reviewed, two used nationally representative
household data sets, the Current Population Survey and the Survey of
Income and Program Participation.\28\ The study that used the Current
Population Survey data from 2011-2015 found that an estimated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ The Current Population Survey, sponsored jointly by the U.S.
Census Bureau and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, is the primary
source of labor force statistics for the population of the United
States. Since 1995, the Current Population Survey has included a Food
Security Supplement (FSS) that has collected information on the food
security, food program participation, and food expenditures of U.S.
households. FSS survey questions ask about the household as a whole and
not about individuals within the household. The Survey of Income and
Program Participation, sponsored by the U.S. Census Bureau, is the
Federal Government's premier source of information for U.S. household
income and program participation. The Survey of Income and Program
Participation collects data for many topics, including: economic well-
being, family dynamics, education, assets, health insurance, childcare,
and food security.

11 percent of households with a student in a 4 year college
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
experienced food insecurity,

14 percent of households with a student in vocational/
technical education experienced food insecurity, and

17 percent of households with a student in a community
college experienced food insecurity.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ The authors found that the incidence of food insecurity for
each of these groups was significantly different (at the .05 level)
from the incidence of food insecurity for all adults not in that group.
See Kristin Blagg, Craig Gundersen, Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach, and
James P. Ziliak, Assessing Food Insecurity on Campus: A National Look
at Food Insecurity among America's College Students (Washington, D.C.:
The Urban Institute, August 2017).

These national household surveys assess the food security of
households with a college student member, but they do not directly
survey college students and only measure food security at the
household, and not the individual, level. For example, these household
data may not capture a college student's food insecurity in situations
where the student member of the household does not live at home for
most of the year.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Additionally, while these surveys are nationally
representative overall, the number of households with college students
in these surveys is relatively small, which limits the precision of
these estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The remaining 29 studies we reviewed collectively surveyed college
students on approximately 200 campuses across multiple states,
including two large state university systems, and produced a wide range
of estimates of food insecurity. In most cases, the results can be
characterized as applying only to the respondents of the survey.\31\
The 29 studies based on campus surveys provide a range of food
insecurity rates among respondents, from nine percent to over 50
percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ The inability to generalize beyond survey respondents occurs
in these cases because even when a survey is sent to all students or to
a random sample of students, the students who choose to respond may be
non-random. For example, students with a particular interest in food
insecurity or who want to report their own food insecurity may opt to
participate in these surveys at higher rates than other students. As a
result, the respondents may not fully represent the population sampled.
Additionally, the response rates in many of the surveys used in the
studies we reviewed were very low--in some cases ten percent or below.

For example, a study first published in 2017 found that 15
percent of student respondents at one 4 year college
experienced food insecurity, with an additional 16 percent of
student respondents at that college estimated to be at-risk for
food insecurity.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ See Devon C. Payne-Sturges, Allison Tjaden, Kimberly M.
Caldeira, Kathryn B. Vincent, and Amelia M. Arria, ``Student Hunger on
Campus: Food Insecurity among College Students and Implications for
Academic Institutions,'' American Journal of Health Promotion, vol. 32,
no. 2 (2018).

Two recent surveys of college systems in California found
that 40 percent of respondents from University of California
campuses and 42 percent of respondents from California State
University campuses experienced food insecurity.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ See R.M. Crutchfield and J. Maguire, ``California State
University Office of the Chancellor Study of Student Basic Needs,''
retrieved from http://www.calstate.edu/basicneeds; and Suzanna M.
Martinez, Karen Webb, Edward A. Frongillo, and Lorrene D. Ritchie,
``Food Insecurity in California's Public University System: What Are
the Risk Factors?,'' Journal of Hunger and Environmental Nutrition,
vol. 13, no. 1 (2017).

Estimates of food insecurity rates in the studies we reviewed
tended to be higher at 2 year than at 4 year colleges. Four studies
examined only 2 year college students and three of these studies
estimated food insecurity rates among respondents at 2 year colleges to
be 40 percent or higher. Three studies looked at both 2 year and 4 year
colleges and estimated food insecurity to be higher among students at 2
year colleges. For example, a large, multi-college study conducted in
2017 found that during the 30 days preceding the survey, 42 percent of
community college students who responded and 36 percent of students at
4 year colleges who responded indicated they were food-insecure.\34\
Further, the two studies that used national household data sets found
that households with community college and vocational education student
members had higher food insecurity levels than households with students
at 4 year colleges.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Sara Goldrick-Rab, Jed Richardson, Joel Schneider, Anthony
Hernandez, and Clare Cady, Still Hungry and Homeless in College
(Madison: Wisconsin HOPE Lab, April 2018).
\35\ See Blagg, Gundersen, Schanzenbach, and Ziliak, Assessing Food
Insecurity on Campus. See also K. Broton, ``The Evolution of Poverty in
Higher Education: Material Hardship, Academic Success, and Policy
Perspectives'' (Ph.D. diss., University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Data Show Most Low-Income Students Had Multiple Risk Factors
Associated with Food Insecurity in 2016
We identified and analyzed the prevalence of risk factors
associated with food insecurity among students through our review of
peer-reviewed publications on food insecurity and through interviews
with academic researchers, college officials, state and Federal
officials, and officials from relevant policy organizations.\36\ In the
studies we reviewed and in our interviews with researchers, having a
low income was consistently identified as a key risk factor for food
insecurity. The other risk factors we included in our analysis are:
being a first-generation college student, receiving SNAP, being a
single parent, being disabled, being homeless or at risk of
homelessness, and being a former foster youth.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ We focused on risk factors associated with food insecurity
because nationally representative data on food insecurity among college
students do not exist. The risk factors we identified can be grouped
into several broad categories: low-income indicators, housing issues,
skills/resiliency factors, demographic characteristics, and ``other
stressors.'' For example, the academic studies we reviewed consistently
identified having a low-income as a correlate of food insecurity. Our
analysis focused on potential risk factors that had a corresponding
variable in the 2016 NPSAS data set. We defined low income as a
household income at or below 130 percent of the Federal poverty line
because this is the income threshold for SNAP benefits for households
that do not include a member who is 60 years of age or older or
disabled. For more information on how we identified risk factors
associated with food insecurity, see appendix I.
\37\ Receiving SNAP is a risk factor for food insecurity because
while receiving SNAP benefits addresses food insecurity to some extent,
studies show SNAP recipients still have higher food insecurity rates
than the general population. For example, one study found that
receiving SNAP for 6 months only reduced food insecurity by about 13
percent. In other words, receiving SNAP benefits may reduce food
insecurity without completely eliminating it. See, for example, James
Mabli, Jim Ohls, Lisa Dragoset, Laura Castner, and Betsy Santos,
Measuring the Effect of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
(SNAP) Participation on Food Security, a report prepared by Mathematica
Policy Research at the request of the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Food and Nutrition Service (August 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In our analysis, we focused on students with a household income at
or below 130 percent of the Federal poverty line, which represents 39
percent of all undergraduates.\38\ While having a low income is itself
the most common risk factor for food insecurity among college students,
our analysis found that the majority of low-income students also
experience additional risk factors for food insecurity. The three most
common risk factors for food insecurity among low-income students were
being a first-generation college student; receiving SNAP (receiving
SNAP can be considered a risk factor in that it may reduce, but not
entirely eliminate, food insecurity); and being a single parent. Of the
approximately 7.3 million low-income students, 31 percent were first-
generation college students, 31 percent reported receiving SNAP, and 25
percent were single parents.\39\ The prevalence of risk factors among
low-income students was lower at 4 year colleges compared to other
colleges. For example, about 21 percent of low-income 4 year college
students were single parents in 2016 compared to about 42 percent of
low-income students in less than 2 year programs. Low-income
individuals enrolled in less than 2 year programs had the highest
prevalence for almost all risk factors (see table 1).\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ This analysis excludes foreign and international students.
\39\ Risk factors associated with food insecurity frequently co-
occur. Our analysis found the majority of low-income students who
received SNAP also have one or more additional risk factors. Including
SNAP receipt as a risk factor in our analysis did not substantially
affect the total number of at-risk students.
\40\ Our analysis does not estimate rates of food insecurity among
students with these characteristics because the NPSAS does not include
data on food insecurity. Instead, our analysis highlights low-income
students who have at least one other risk factor associated with food
insecurity. Education officials said they are planning to incorporate
food insecurity questions into the next NPSAS data collection in 2020.
See appendix I for information about how we selected and
operationalized these risk factors.

Table 1: Prevalence of Risk Factors Associated with Food Insecurity among Low-Income U.S. College Undergraduate Students, by College Type in 2016
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 4 year schools 2 year schools Less than 2 year schools
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Risk factor Percent of Percent of Percent of Percent of
Number of low- income Number of low- income Number of low- income Number of low- income
students students students students students students students students
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First generation a 2,299,206 31% 1,015,263 28% 1,188,889 34% 95,053 35%
Receiving SNAP b 2,257,121 31% 1,024,774 29% 1,128,133 33% 104,214 38%
Single parent 1,815,655 25% 756,885 21% 943,168 27% 115,602 42%
Disabled c 1,591,962 22% 757,267 21% 773,159 22% 61,536 22%
Homeless or at risk of homeless 1,109,714 15% 504,397 14% 548,235 16% 57,082 21%
Former foster youth d 788,866 11% 391,819 11% 371,419 11% 25,628 9%
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Low-income students e....... 7,339,571 100% 3,597,419 100% 3,466,862 100% 275,291 100%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO analysis of 2016 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study Data. D GAO-19-95.
Notes: All results are within a +/-5.5 percentage point margin of error. Percentages do not sum to 100 percent because students may have more than one
risk factor.
a Being a first generation college student is determined based on whether the student reported that his/her parents attended college.
b Receipt of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits is self-reported and not cross-checked with Food Nutrition Service (FNS)
enrollment data.
c Students self-report their disability status; this is not based on a Federal disability determination.
d The variable we used as a proxy for having been a former foster youth is indicated by being an orphan or ward of the court.
e Low income is defined as having a household income level at or below 130 percent of the Federal poverty level.

Twenty-nine percent of all U.S. undergraduates had a low income and
experienced at least one additional risk factor for food insecurity,
according to our analysis of 2016 NPSAS data--14 percent had a low
income and one other risk factor and 15 percent had a low income and
two or more additional risk factors associated with food insecurity
(see table 2). Risk factors associated with food insecurity are more
prevalent among low-income students than among the general student
population, with 75 percent of low-income students experiencing one or
more additional risk factors. Students at 2 year colleges and those in
less than 2 year programs were also more likely to have multiple risk
factors.
Table 2: Prevalence of Risk Factors Associated with Food Insecurity
among Low-Income U.S. College Undergraduate Students in 2016

Source: GAO analysis of 2016 National Postsecondary Student
Aid Study Data D GAO-19-95.
Notes: All results are within a +/-1 percentage point margin
of error. Sums have been rounded to the nearest whole
percentage point. We included the following risk factors
associated with food insecurity in addition to having a low
income: being a first-generation college student, receiving
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits,
being a single parent, being disabled, being homeless or at
risk of homelessness, and being a former foster youth.
Fifty-Seven Percent of Potentially Eligible Low-Income Students with
Food Insecurity Risk Factors in 2016 Did Not Participate in
SNAP
In our analysis of SNAP participation among students, we focused on
low-income students with at least one additional risk factor for food
insecurity because these students would likely meet the income
threshold for SNAP eligibility and have an additional risk factor that
could put them in need of food assistance.\41\ Our analysis of 2016
NPSAS data identified about 5.5 million low-income students with at
least one additional risk factor for food insecurity and found that
about 59 percent of these students (3.3 million) reported being
enrolled at least half time and meeting a SNAP student eligibility
exemption. About 1.8 million of these low-income students with an
additional risk factor reported meeting a student exemption and also
that they were not receiving SNAP benefits.\42\ In other words, among
potentially SNAP eligible low-income students with at least one
additional factor for food insecurity, 57 percent did not report
participating in SNAP in 2016 (see fig. 2).\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ We identified potentially eligible students based on
characteristics we identified in the NPSAS data, specifically, whether
they had an income at or below 130 percent of the Federal poverty level
and reported meeting one of the student exemptions we were able to
capture in our analysis. Our analysis was not able to perfectly capture
all the student eligibility exemptions. Some of the limitations of our
analysis may have led to fewer students appearing to meet an
eligibility exemption (specifically the exemption related to
participation in other employment and training programs, for which
there is no corresponding NPSAS variable), while others may have led to
more students appearing to meet an eligibility exemption (specifically
the exemptions related to disability and the availability of childcare,
for which the NPSAS variable does not perfectly align with the SNAP
student exemptions). A student who meets a SNAP exemption must still
submit a SNAP application with household income and asset information;
then the state SNAP agency reviews the application, interviews the
applicant to gather additional relevant information, and determines
eligibility for SNAP benefits. See appendix I for more information on
how we identified students who potentially met a SNAP eligibility
exemption using NPSAS data.
\42\ The student or their parents report receipt of SNAP benefits
on the Free Application for Federal Student Aid. Students are asked
about their receipt of SNAP benefits again during the interview portion
of the NPSAS. Most students we identified as not receiving SNAP were
financially independent and could likely apply for SNAP as their own
household; dependent students who are potentially eligible can only
receive SNAP as part of their parents' household.
\43\ The total SNAP participation rate among potentially eligible
students with one additional risk factor was 43 percent. According to
FNS, in Fiscal Year 2016, the national SNAP participation rate among
all eligible persons was about 85 percent. See Karen Cunnyngham, Trends
in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Participation Rates:
Fiscal Year 2010 to Fiscal Year 2016, a report prepared at the request
of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service
(Washington, D.C.: Mathematica Policy Research, July 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 2: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
Participation among Low-Income College Students At-Risk of Food
Insecurity in 2016

Source: GAO analysis of 2016 National Postsecondary Student
Aid Study (NPSAS) data. D GAO-19-95.
Notes: All results are within a +/-2 percentage point margin
of error. We identified students potentially eligible for SNAP
based on characteristics we identified in the NPSAS data
related to SNAP eligibility-specifically, whether they had an
income at or below 130 percent of the Federal poverty level and
reported one of the characteristics we identified that
correspond to the student exemptions we were able to capture in
our analysis. Some of the limitations of our analysis may have
led to fewer students appearing to meet an eligibility
exemption (specifically the exemption related to participation
in other employment and training programs, for which there is
no corresponding NPSAS variable), while others may have led to
more students appearing to meet an eligibility exemption
(specifically the exemptions related to disability and the
availability of childcare, for which the NPSAS variable does
not perfectly align with the SNAP student exemption). We did
not make any legal determination about actual SNAP eligibility
for any individual. Risk factors associated with food
insecurity include being disabled, homeless or housing
insecure, a former foster youth, a single parent, the first-
generation in a student's family to attend college, and
receiving SNAP benefits. Participation in SNAP is self-reported
through the Free Application for Federal Student Aid and these
data are used in the NPSAS.
a Students who did not meet an eligibility
exemption but reported receiving SNAP (1) may be receiving SNAP
as members of their parents' household, (2) may have attended
college less than half time and therefore were not subject to
the student SNAP restrictions, or (3) may have met one of the
student exemptions we were unable to capture in our analysis.

About \1/4\ of the 5.5 million low-income students with at least
one additional risk factor for food insecurity did not meet any of the
student exemptions we could identify in the NPSAS data and reported
that they did not receive SNAP benefits.\44\ These students would
likely be ineligible to participate in SNAP unless they begin meeting
one of the student eligibility exemptions in the future, such as
working 20 hours per week.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ In addition, 15 percent of low-income college students with
one additional risk factor for food insecurity did not appear to meet
one of the student exemptions, based on our analysis, but reported they
received SNAP in 2016. This may be because they received SNAP through
their parents' household, were enrolled less than half time and
therefore not subject to student SNAP restrictions, or met one of the
student exemptions we were unable to capture in our analysis. For
example, the NPSAS data set does not contain data for the student
eligibility exemption ``enrolled in certain programs aimed at
employment,'' such as the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act or
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families employment and training
programs. As a result, we may overestimate the number of students who
did not meet an eligibility exemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Selected Colleges Are Using a Range of Approaches to Address Student
Food Insecurity
The 14 selected colleges we contacted are addressing student food
insecurity in three main ways: by educating faculty, staff, and
students; by providing students free food and emergency assistance; and
by centralizing and coordinating their student services and helping
students apply for Federal and state benefits. Officials at nine of
these colleges said that they viewed student food insecurity as part of
students' increasing inability to meet their basic needs as a result of
the decreasing affordability of higher education or the high cost of
living. This sentiment was echoed by selected students we spoke with
during discussion groups (see text box).

------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Student Statements from GAO Site Visits at Selected Colleges

The reality is that I skip meals, often I don't eat lunch. I don't
want to get lunch here on campus because it's too expensive. I get
headaches, have trouble concentrating. I also have a disability that is
worse if I don't eat.
My parents stopped supporting me once I left for college, so I'm on
my own. So the amount of food I'm able to buy is less.
I did not have much money when I started school, and immediately had
to choose whether to buy food or a $200 book for class. I chose to buy
the book.
Sometimes I get home at the end of the day and I realize I haven't
eaten all day. And then I realize my school work is not up to my actual
ability--I definitely think not eating affects my grades. You can tell
when you don't feel good that you can't do your best work.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO discussion groups with students at selected colleges taking
steps to address food insecurity among students. D GAO-19-95.

All of the colleges we contacted have implemented on-campus
initiatives to combat students' food insecurity with the goal of
improving their student outcomes, such as retention, completion, and
loan repayment rates. As one community college official told us: ``We
have come to realize that we can't address retention and completion
without addressing students' basic needs.'' See figure 3 for the range
of initiatives the 14 colleges we contacted were taking to address food
insecurity among college students on their campuses.
Figure 3: Initiatives by Selected Colleges to Address Student Food
Insecurity

Source: Information from 14 selected colleges GAO contacted.
D GAO-19-95.

Educating the campus community. Officials at several of the
selected colleges told us that many administrators, faculty, staff, and
students on their campus are unaware that students experience food
insecurity, which hinders their college's efforts to address the issue
(see text box). At all 14 colleges we contacted, officials said they
are educating their campus community about available resources, both on
campus and off, to address student food insecurity.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Student Statements from GAO Site Visits at Selected Colleges

Students may think: `I'm educated, [SNAP] is not a program for me
and therefore don't apply for [SNAP]. So many students, including
graduate students, plan their evenings around events with free food--
but the same people [who are] trying to figure out how to get free food
every night also think they don't need [SNAP].'
One student said that a university housing staff member told him:
`You're a college student, you don't need SNAP.'
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO discussion groups with students at selected colleges taking
steps to address food insecurity among students. D GAO-19-95.

All of the 14 colleges we contacted also educate their students
about the resources available to address food insecurity in a variety
of ways, such as by providing information during student orientations,
on flyers and pamphlets, or through social media and text messages.
Eight of the 14 colleges we contacted hold trainings or distribute
information to faculty and staff about the on-campus and community
resources available to students. Nine of these colleges have created
supplemental or for-credit courses on topics such as financial literacy
or cooking and nutrition. For example, one college we visited runs a
workshop for first-year students on writing a spending plan and a food
budget. At several of the selected colleges, faculty members include
blurbs about basic needs-related resources, such as campus food
pantries, in their syllabi.
Providing food and emergency financial assistance. All of the 14
colleges we contacted address student food insecurity by providing
students free food and most provide students emergency financial
assistance. Nationwide, the College and University Food Bank Alliance
has reported that at least 656 colleges have or were developing food
pantries as of September 2018.\45\ Each of the 14 colleges we contacted
had a food pantry, with seven having started their pantry in the past 5
years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ This is the number of college food pantries registered as
members with the College and University Food Bank Alliance and does not
include college food pantries that are not members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to college officials, individual faculty and staff
members are often first to identify food insecurity as a campus concern
and provide food to students. For example, officials at several of the
colleges we contacted traced the origins of their college's food pantry
to a drawer of food a faculty or staff member kept in their office for
students, or to a professor who brought jars of peanut butter or bagels
for any student who wanted one.
The college food pantries we visited varied in terms of their size
and location, which can depend upon the space available on campus.\46\
For example, some pantries we visited consisted of only a couple of
shelves of non-perishable items, while others spanned multiple rooms
containing refrigerators and freezers. Directors at four of the
selected food pantries said that student need was great enough to
support expanding the food pantry, but that they had been unable to
expand because space on campus is at a premium (see text box).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ The food pantries we visited received funding from a variety
of sources, including from their college's budget, faculty, staff, and
student donations, grants from community food banks, or endowments
created by college donors.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Campus Food Pantry Coordinator Statement from GAO Site Visit at Selected
College

Demand for the food pantry has increased tenfold in the last 2
years. We have far more demand than supply. We're trying to get
additional delivery days for produce, because as soon as produce is
stocked, it's gone the same day. The same is true for protein,
especially frozen chicken.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO interview. D GAO-19-95.

Several pantries also had separate sections providing students
personal health items and clothing and offered auxiliary services, such
as information about cooking, food budgeting, or SNAP enrollment (see
fig. 4 for pictures of some of the college food pantries at selected
colleges).
Figure 4: Pictures of Food Pantries from GAO Site Visits to Selected
Colleges

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Sources: Photographs from colleges and GAO. D GAO-19-95.

Officials at 11 of the selected colleges we contacted said that a
major barrier they face is overcoming the stigma some students
associate with accepting help for their basic needs, such as using the
food pantry (see text box). Concern about this stigma led at least
three of the colleges we contacted to place their food pantry in a
less-public area of campus to address students' privacy concerns. In
contrast, three other colleges we contacted centrally located their
food pantry to advertise its existence and normalize its use. One
college president we spoke with said that ``until [the college]
normalized [the food pantry] and pulled it to the center of campus, it
was underutilized,'' and stated that moving the food pantry to the
center of campus quadrupled its use.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Student Statements from GAO Site Visits at Selected Colleges

I don't tell my family that I'm struggling with food because
everyone I know is struggling with money--I don't want to stress them
out. It's not a comfortable conversation to have. I haven't lived with
my parents in years, I wouldn't even know how to ask them for help.
In the academic community, there's a normalization that you provide
food at events to get students to come because they're hungry--one
professor said 'starving is part of grad school.' One student responded
to that by saying `Isn't it odd that we're using students' hunger to
get them in the door? Why should this even be an issue?'
I didn't recognize the physical impact of eating breakfast until I
took Physical Education here, where the coach said we couldn't come to
class unless we ate breakfast. I realized that eating breakfast makes
me much more clearheaded and focused in my morning classes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO discussion groups with students at selected colleges taking
steps to address food insecurity among students. D GAO-19-95.

Officials at 9 of the 14 colleges we contacted reported that their
campus food pantry had seen an increased number of users over time as
the student body became aware of this resource. One student we spoke
with said that his college's food pantry was his only source of food,
while another estimated that the food pantry allowed him to save about
$100 per month on food.
Officials at 10 of the 14 selected colleges we contacted told us
they partner with national organizations or campus dining services or
both to try to respond to the needs of students who might be
experiencing food insecurity. For instance, public colleges in
California receive state funding to incentivize them to address student
food insecurity in a variety of ways, including by establishing campus
food pantries, providing information to students about SNAP benefits,
and establishing meal point donation programs.\47\ Two California
colleges we contacted were working with a national organization to set
up a meal point donation program. One college in another state we
visited included in their contract with their private dining services
vendor funding for several initiatives, such as a campus-wide survey of
student food insecurity, on-campus farmer[s'] markets, and a learning
kitchen that teaches students hands-on cooking skills. Additionally,
two of the colleges we contacted are working to have SNAP benefits
accepted at campus markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ Cal. Educ. Code 66027.8(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beyond providing students with free food, officials at 12 of the 14
colleges we contacted said that their college makes emergency cash
assistance available to students through small loans, grants, or
grocery store or gas station gift cards. These emergency funds are
intended to help students pay bills for one-time financial emergencies,
such as buying groceries or paying for a car repair or a utility bill.
One community college we visited directly ties this assistance to its
retention efforts, providing a one-time amount of up to $500 for
students judged to have sufficient need and who are likely to remain in
school if the bill is paid.
Centralizing and coordinating student services and access to
benefits. Officials at many of the colleges we contacted told us they
have centralized their student support and financial aid services,
among others, and several have introduced a case management approach to
better collaborate across departments and more efficiently and
holistically address their students' basic needs (see text box). Of the
14 colleges we contacted, eight had centralized some or all of their
student services. For example, one community college we visited has co-
located many of its student services--including its financial aid,
academic counseling, payroll, food pantry, veterans' services, and
women's resource center, among others--around a central hub of the
student union. Students visiting this central hub may be assigned a
caseworker to connect them with the on-campus, community, state, and
Federal benefits for which they are eligible. Officials at a few of the
colleges we contacted said that centrally locating student services
also helped faculty and staff by providing a single point of contact to
refer students. One official said that she tells faculty and peer
mentors: ``If you see a student in any kind of distress at all--mental
health, hunger, homelessness, anything--send them to us.'' She added
that it is too much to ask faculty to figure out which office or
official to send students to for specific concerns.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Student Statements from GAO Site Visits at Selected Colleges

[The college's centralized benefits hub, which offers food and
assistance applying for Federal and state benefit programs] has helped
me so much. I visit [it] probably two times a week and they helped me
get my SNAP benefits. When I am hungry, I can't concentrate on school
or pay attention to my studies.
The entire basement level of the student center is being turned into
a basic needs hub. In addition to the food pantry, the hub will also
include the student SNAP office, the student environmental resource
center [which is a partner in building sustainable and equitable food
systems on campus], and other student benefits services. Services on
this campus have been very decentralized, and this centralized hub will
provide one location for students to go to get assistance with their
basic needs--it's going to be a big help having everything in one
place.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO discussion groups with students at selected colleges taking
steps to address food insecurity among students. D GAO-19-95.

Officials at 8 of the 14 colleges we contacted told us their campus
has established a coordinated benefits access program or is actively
screening students for potential eligibility for, and helping them
enroll in, Federal and state benefit programs like SNAP, WIC, Medicaid,
and the Earned Income Tax Credit.\48\ For example, one community
college we contacted had a staff member build a statistical model to
analyze the college's existing data on first-time students, such as
data on students' household income, demographics, and course
enrollment, to identify students at risk of not returning to college
and to provide these students, their professors, and their faculty
advisors with information about on-campus resources. Officials at one
college we visited told us the campus hosts weekly clinics with county
SNAP eligibility analysts to screen students for SNAP eligibility and
help them apply for benefits. At a community college system we visited,
the Administration told us they were working with the state SNAP agency
to identify which students were receiving SNAP benefits and they plan
to send targeted information on SNAP to those potentially eligible
students not receiving benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ Medicaid is a joint Federal and state program that provides
health coverage to millions of Americans, including some low-income
individuals, families and children, pregnant women, the elderly, and
people with disabilities. The Earned Income Tax Credit is a Federal
benefit for low- to moderate-income workers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Officials at three of the colleges we contacted said that their
college was purchasing software that creates a centralized portal where
faculty and staff can share information about a student's situation
with student support providers so they can better provide help. For
example, at a college we visited that is using such software, officials
said that a professor might note in the centralized portal that an at-
risk student was either failing or not attending a class, and that
student would be flagged in the portal to notify academic advisors,
counselors, and other college staff who can direct the student to the
on-campus resources they may need, such as the food pantry or help in
completing a SNAP application.
While SNAP Can Supplement Other Federal Aid for Some Low-Income
Students, FNS Does Not Share Key Information to Help States
Better Leverage SNAP to Assist Students
Federal Programs Are Limited in the Extent to Which They Can Address
the Needs of College Students Experiencing Food Insecurity
Federal Student Aid Generally Does Not Cover All College Costs for Low-
Income Students
Federal grant aid is available to help low-income college students
and their families pay for college, but for many students, the maximum
amount of grant aid available to them does not cover all of the costs
associated with attending college.\49\ Officials from many of the
organizations we interviewed said that the Federal Pell Grant Program
for low-income college students was a major source of financial support
for these students, but that it does not cover the full cost of college
attendance for many students, and particularly for those at 4 year
colleges or in areas with high costs of living.\50\ Most low-income
students also work while attending college.\51\ Despite this, several
college officials we interviewed told us that the gap between the
amount of financial aid available and what it costs to attend college
is continuing to grow. One financial aid director told us that students
used to be able to pay for groceries or rent with some of their
financial aid ``refund'' money (that is, financial aid funds refunded
to a student after tuition, fees, and other school charges are paid,
which can be used to pay for other education and living expenses);
however, he said students rarely receive a refund any more. According
to data from Education's National Center for Education Statistics, the
average Pell Grant used to cover more of the cost of college than it
does today. For example, about 40 years ago--soon after the Pell Grant
Program was established--the average award covered about 50 percent of
the average cost of in-state tuition, fees, room, and board at public 2
year colleges, and 39 percent at public 4 year colleges. Today, the
average Pell Grant award amount covers just 37 percent of these costs
at public 2 year colleges, and 19 percent at public 4 year
colleges.\52\ Federal Work-Study Program employment opportunities may
be available to qualifying students, but several officials we
interviewed noted that funding for this program is extremely limited,
especially at community colleges where there are more students at risk
of food insecurity.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ Most states also have need- and merit-based student aid
programs.
\50\ For 2018-2019, the maximum annual Federal Pell Grant award is
$6,095.
\51\ According to 2015-2016 NPSAS data, 60 percent of low-income
students had a job while enrolled in college.
\52\ These figures are based on data from the U.S. Department of
Education, National Center for Education Statistics and Federal Pell
Grant Program End of Year reports. See National Center for Education
Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics, Table 330.10 and Pell Grant
End of Year reports at https://www2.ed.gov/finaid/prof/resources/data/
pell-data.html.
\53\ The Federal Work-Study Program allows students to earn up to
their awarded amount by working at an on-campus job or certain off-
campus jobs. Students who participate in the Federal Work-Study Program
would meet one of the student SNAP exemptions. A few officials told us
that because funds for each campus are limited and awarded to students
on a first come, first served basis, many students are unable to
participate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When grant funds and student earnings are insufficient to cover the
full cost of college, students can take out Federal student loans to
make up the difference. Officials at a national association of
community colleges and at a few colleges we visited told us that low-
income students often use Federal loans to help them pay for basic
living expenses--such as food or rent. While these loans can be helpful
for some students who need additional funds to support themselves while
in college, officials at a few community colleges also cautioned that
loans may not be the best choice for all students, and may worsen the
financial position of already vulnerable students. For example, at one
4 year college we visited, the financial aid director said that many of
their students have reached their maximum Federal lifetime loan limit
(see text box for an example).\54\ He also noted that graduates have,
on average, $25,000 of student loan debt. He said his college has
historically trained its students for public sector careers, e.g.,
teachers or counselors, and he worries that salaries in these
professions will not allow graduates to repay this amount of student
loans.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ In 2018, the aggregate lifetime Federal Direct Loan limit for
dependent undergraduate students was $31,000. For independent
undergraduate students, it was $57,500.
\55\ Graduates who enter public service careers full time with
qualifying employers are eligible for forgiveness for part of their
Federal student loan debt after meeting certain other requirements. GAO
found that many borrowers are confused about this program and we
recommended that Education do more to ensure students understand which
employers qualify for the program. See GAO, Public Service Loan
Forgiveness: Education Needs to Provide Better Information for the Loan
Servicer and Borrowers, GAO-18-547 (http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-18-
547) (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 5, 2018).

------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Student Statement from GAO Site Visit at Selected College

I was originally in the Registered Nursing (RN) program, but had to
switch to the Licensed Practicing Nursing (LPN) program because that
program requires fewer credits, and I have maxed out my Federal student
loans and have no further funds to pay for the additional classes
needed for an RN.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO interview. D GAO-19-95.

College Students Have Limited Access to Federal Food Assistance
Programs
Given the limitations of Federal student aid funding, officials
from several organizations we interviewed spoke about the importance of
leveraging other Federal benefits, such as food assistance programs, to
help address the needs of college students experiencing food
insecurity. According to research on the effect of SNAP benefits, these
benefits can provide some help to students, although they may not
completely eliminate their food insecurity.\56\ However, college
students have limited access to several key Federal food assistance
programs that could help address some of their needs. For example,
several college officials we spoke with noted that many low-income
students received federally subsidized free or reduced price lunch
while in elementary and secondary school, but a comparable program does
not exist for college students, even though many face the same level of
need. In addition, many college students are prohibited from receiving
Federal SNAP benefits because of restrictions on student eligibility.
Several college officials told us that when students are unable to meet
one of the student exemptions for SNAP benefits, they will try to
connect them to community resources or to the on-campus food pantry,
but a few characterized these as short-term solutions to their
students' problems. We also heard from officials at several colleges
that students who are pregnant or postpartum may qualify for the WIC
program, which provides food assistance to mothers with infants and
young children; however, this program serves only a small minority of
college students who may be experiencing food insecurity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ See, for example, Mabli, Ohls, Dragoset, Castner, and Santos,
Measuring the Effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some State SNAP Agencies Are Assisting Potentially Eligible Students to
Access SNAP Benefits
About \1/3\ of state SNAP agencies reported they were taking
actions to inform college students about SNAP and help them access SNAP
benefits.\57\ These state SNAP agencies reported assisting college
students in various ways, including by developing guidance or training
for state and college officials on student eligibility rules, by
conducting outreach at local colleges, or by providing students with
options to qualify for a SNAP student exemption by participating in
employment and training services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ We emailed the SNAP directors of all 50 states and the
District of Columbia to ask what, if any, actions their state agency
was taking to address college student food insecurity. Fifty of the 51
state SNAP agencies responded to our email for a 98 percent response
rate. About a quarter of states that responded to our email indicated
that they had implemented a state option related to averaging student
work hours on a monthly basis instead of requiring 20 hours per week to
qualify for a student exemption. For the purposes of our analysis, we
did not include this as a state action because it is an approach to
implementing an existing student exemption. This email inquiry was
conducted in March and April 2018 and may not include all state actions
that have occurred since April 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several States Are Clarifying Student Rules and Conducting Training and
Outreach about SNAP Student Eligibility
Eleven state SNAP agencies reported clarifying policy on college
student eligibility to SNAP staff who determine eligibility for
benefits or providing training to third-party partners to increase
awareness of students' potential eligibility for SNAP. For example, in
2015 and 2017 California's state SNAP agency issued policy letters to
its county offices clarifying college student eligibility rules and
expanding the list of college programs that qualify a student for an
exemption under the employment and training provision.\58\ Minnesota's
state SNAP agency reported that it conducts technical assistance
training on student eligibility issues for its caseworkers twice a
year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ In California and in nine other states, counties separately
administer the SNAP program on behalf of the state SNAP agency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
State SNAP agencies also reported partnering with colleges to
increase awareness of potential student SNAP eligibility or to reduce
the burden of the application process for students. For example,
Missouri's state SNAP agency reported that it recently began a
partnership with the state's community college association to increase
students' awareness of their potential eligibility for SNAP. To reduce
the burden students face in applying for SNAP benefits, Rhode Island's
state SNAP agency reported that its outreach partner holds regular
``office hours'' at state community college campuses to answer
questions about SNAP, screen students for potential eligibility, and
assist with application completion. Officials from California's state
SNAP agency stated that its county SNAP agencies periodically hold SNAP
enrollment clinics on college campuses. At one time, a community
college in California had a county SNAP staff member located on campus
to assist their students with benefit applications.
Finally, two of the states we visited partially fund their state
higher education grants for low-income college students with some of
their Federal TANF block grant dollars.\59\ Because these grant
recipients receive TANF benefits, they are eligible for the
corresponding SNAP student exemption. For example, the California state
SNAP agency issued guidance in February 2017 to all of its county
offices to explain that this SNAP student exemption applies to any
student who receives the state's higher-education grant for low-income
students.\60\ In Massachusetts, the state SNAP agency issued similar
guidance in August 2017 to state SNAP staff who determine eligibility
for benefits.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ States may use Federal TANF block grant funds on a wide range
of benefits and services, including to support work, education, and
training programs.
\60\ California Health and Human Services Agency, Department of
Social Services, CalFresh Student Eligibility, All County Letter No.
17-05 (Sacramento: February 2017).
\61\ Massachusetts Executive Office of Health and Human Services,
Department of Transitional Assistance, SNAP--Student Eligibility
Updates, Online Guide Transmittal 2017-52 (Boston: August 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some States Are Implementing Approaches that Provide Additional
Employment and Training Options for Certain Students
Some state SNAP agencies are taking steps related to the exemption
for students who are enrolled in certain employment and training
programs, which can be offered at 2 year colleges and other community-
based organizations.\62\ Seven states reported taking steps to
designate specific programs at their community colleges to qualify as
employment and training programs to make it easier for students and
SNAP staff who determine eligibility for benefits to identify students
who could meet this exemption. In these states, according to the SNAP
agency, they have determined that certain programs at community
colleges qualify enrolled students for one of the student SNAP
exemptions because they are programs for low-income households, aimed
at employment, and run by a state or local government.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ Many of the student SNAP exemptions are relatively easy for a
state SNAP staff member who determines eligibility for benefits to
verify, for example, being a single parent of a child under age 12 or
participating in the Federal Work-Study Program. One student exemption-
related to participation in employment and training programs--is less
straightforward because states must review the components of each
program and independently determine if it qualifies as such a program
under FNS rules. FNS officials told us state SNAP agencies are not
required to report information on how many states take these approaches
or how many students qualify for SNAP through the employment and
training student exemption.
\63\ See 7 U.S.C. 2015(e)(3)(D); see also 7 CFR
273.5(b)(11)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to FNS, state SNAP agencies have the authority to decide
which programs would qualify enrolled students for this exemption, and
several states have identified qualifying programs at community
colleges in their state.\64\ Students in these designated community
college programs who attend at least half time and do not meet one of
the other student exemptions can be eligible for SNAP under this
provision if they meet all other eligibility criteria. In 2010,
Massachusetts' state SNAP agency began using a dedicated form that
provides community college students in these state-designated
employment and training programs support for their SNAP application.
According to officials at the state SNAP agency, this form has helped
to streamline the application process for both students and state SNAP
agency staff who determine eligibility for benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ These programs must meet the requirements detailed at 7 CFR
273.5(b)(11)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other states are developing opportunities for students to meet the
employment and training exemption through partnerships with the states'
SNAP Employment & Training (E&T) programs. Twenty-four state SNAP
agencies reported that they have implemented a third-party partnership
with at least one community college to deliver SNAP E&T program
services on campus.\65\ Under these state SNAP E&T program
partnerships, the state SNAP agency works with community colleges to
enroll SNAP recipients in programs that are designed to increase the
employability of the participant. One FNS official told us that state
SNAP E&T programs were an ideal way to provide college students who
qualify for SNAP benefits with additional services and support, such as
counseling or transportation assistance, and that they can help
students persist in their community college program and ultimately
improve their self-sufficiency.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ FNS-reported data as of Fiscal Year 2018. SNAP E&T programs
can also partner with other community-based organizations to deliver
services.
\66\ According to FNS, state SNAP E&T programs are a secondary
payer for students who are enrolled in college programs. For example,
if a student is determined to be eligible for a Pell Grant or other
Federal financial aid, these funds must be used first to pay for
tuition. Once other funding sources have been exhausted, state SNAP E&T
program funds may be used for any outstanding tuition and fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to FNS, state agencies can enroll individuals in these
SNAP E&T programs in one of two ways. A SNAP recipient may enroll in
the designated community college training program affiliated with the
state's SNAP E&T program, which allows them to continue receiving SNAP
benefits even if they attend the program more than half time. Or, the
community college partner can refer individuals already enrolled at the
college to the state SNAP agency to determine if they are eligible for
state SNAP E&T program services--a process known as a ``reverse
referral.'' In the case of a reverse referral, individuals who are
enrolled in certain training programs and who are experiencing food
insecurity may be able to qualify for a student exemption to receive
SNAP, as well as additional services through state SNAP E&T
programs.\67\ According to Washington's state SNAP agency, SNAP E&T
programs operate at all 34 community colleges in the state, and have
served approximately 20,000 students each fiscal year since 2015. A
senior program official at Washington's state SNAP agency told us that
the vast majority of incoming community college students in Washington
are screened for potential eligibility and reverse referral into the
state's SNAP E&T program services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ Students who are referred to state SNAP E&T programs and
qualify for a student SNAP exemption must meet other financial and non-
financial eligibility criteria to receive benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
College and State Officials Reported That FNS Does Not Share Key
Information That Could Help Them Assist Students Experiencing
Food Insecurity
At 9 of the 14 colleges we contacted, some officials and students
we spoke with indicated that they either did not know about or found it
difficult to understand the SNAP student rules. For example, in a
student discussion group at one community college, some students said
they were uncertain about how SNAP student rules applied to them when
they lived with their parents but received no financial support or food
from them. Officials at another college told us that many students are
not even aware of or do not realize that the SNAP student rules apply
to them. In a student discussion group we held at another college, some
students told us that they had been unaware that they may be eligible
for SNAP until they spoke to someone at their college. Further, we
found college officials may also have difficulty understanding SNAP
student rules--for example, officials at one college said that they
believed that college students are not eligible for SNAP. College
officials can be an important source of information for students
regarding SNAP, but this can create barriers to access if college
officials do not have the correct information. For example, at one
college we visited, two students said they were misinformed by
officials at their college or their state SNAP agency about their
potential eligibility for SNAP.
Officials we met with at three colleges said that they would like
information from FNS about college student eligibility rules so they
can help educate and enroll students in SNAP, but FNS has not developed
such targeted information to distribute to colleges and students.
Officials at one college said they requested information from FNS to
distribute to students, but the general SNAP eligibility brochure FNS
provided did not reference college student eligibility
requirements.\68\ A senior FNS official said developing printed
materials expressly explaining the college student eligibility
requirements is primarily a state agency responsibility, and that
information about this topic was available on the FNS website. However,
we found that the information specifically related to college student
eligibility requirements on the FNS website was not easy to find. For
example, the main webpage of FNS's SNAP eligibility website lists the
special circumstances under which certain specific populations may be
SNAP eligible, but it does not include college students nor does it
link to the webpage listing the student exemptions.\69\ Further, the
webpage containing information on SNAP for college students restates
the list of student exemptions from the regulations, using legal and
technical language that is not always easy to understand. For example,
the webpage states that students ``may be able to get SNAP benefits if
otherwise eligible, and they `get public assistance benefits under a
Title IV--A program of the Social Security Act.' '' Many college
officials and students may not realize this refers to TANF benefits. In
addition, the website does not list being ``not physically or mentally
fit'' (e.g., having a disability) as one of the ways to qualify for a
student exemption, nor does it provide information relevant to how
students may qualify for an exemption because they are assigned to or
placed in certain employment and training programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ Officials at two FNS regional offices told us they were aware
of a few colleges in their regions that had developed SNAP materials to
distribute to students, but these materials were locally developed and
disseminated only at certain colleges.
\69\ According to federally developed web usability guidelines,
important information should be available within two or three clicks of
the homepage. We found the SNAP for Students webpage was not linked to
the SNAP Eligibility webpage, and only found the SNAP for Students
webpage by conducting a keyword search on the FNS website. See
Department of Health and Human Services, The Research-based Web Design
and Usability Guidelines, Enlarged/Expanded Edition, (Washington, D.C.:
August 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A senior official from the FNS national office said that college
student eligibility and the student exemptions were among the most
complicated SNAP policies to explain and that they frequently receive
questions from the general public about how the rules apply to certain
students in certain situations. This official said that because the
student SNAP rules are so difficult to navigate, FNS responds to these
individual questions and circumstances as they arise, rather than
developing materials that could apply broadly to every situation, and
that state SNAP agencies are primarily responsible for assisting
students. Officials at all four FNS regional offices we spoke with said
materials explaining the student rules tailored to colleges and college
students would prove useful to states and colleges in their regions.
While developing clear written materials about a complicated policy is
challenging, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government
states that agencies should communicate key information to their
internal and external stakeholders.\70\ Further, a core activity of the
SNAP program is to work with its partners to ensure that those eligible
for nutrition assistance can make informed decisions about applying for
the program.\71\ The lack of clear and easily accessible information on
student SNAP eligibility requirements can make it difficult for
potentially eligible students to make informed choices about applying
for SNAP, and for colleges to develop their own materials to help
potentially eligible students apply for SNAP. As a result, students
could miss opportunities to obtain the additional support they may need
to stay in college and graduate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government,
GAO-14-704G (http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-704G) (Washington,
D.C.: Sept. 10, 2014).
\71\ The SNAP program's other core activity is to improve program
administration and ensure program integrity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, we found that some state SNAP agencies had limited
information about approaches that they could take to help potentially
eligible college students who may qualify for a student exemption.
Specifically, officials at four of the five state SNAP agencies and at
three of the four FNS regional offices that we spoke with said that it
is not entirely clear to them under which circumstances college
students may be eligible for a student exemption if they are enrolled
in a qualifying employment and training program run by a community
college. State SNAP agency officials in four of the five states, as
well as officials in three of the four FNS regional offices, told us
that they would like more information from FNS about how to implement
the approach some state SNAP agencies are taking to help college
students who may qualify for an employment and training exemption
access SNAP. One state SNAP agency official said that she believes that
the lack of guidance and leadership from FNS on this issue leaves many
state SNAP agencies operating with uncertainty, and, as a result, many
of them do not take any actions to identify those college students who
may qualify for an employment and training exemption under SNAP rules.
Several of the FNS regional office officials we interviewed agreed
that the FNS national office was uniquely positioned to collect and
share information about potential approaches that states are using to
implement the student exemption for employment and training programs so
that other states could also consider using such approaches to assist
low-income college students who may qualify. Officials at one FNS
regional office said that an FAQ-type document on college student
eligibility scenarios would be helpful. At the same time, a few FNS
regional office officials said that the national office is cautious
about developing information for all states when each state's SNAP
program operates slightly differently.\72\ According to FNS national
office officials, FNS issued the most recent document discussing
general SNAP eligibility for students in August 2010. This document
explained that certain employment and training services provided by a
state or local government may qualify a student for a SNAP student
exemption. In November 2016, six Federal agencies including USDA (on
behalf of FNS) released an interagency letter, Aligning Federal
Supports and Program Delivery for College Access and Completion, that
includes information from FNS related to general student eligibility
for SNAP.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ As previously noted, state SNAP agencies have flexibility to
adapt their programs to meet the needs of eligible, low-income
households in their states.
\73\ See Aligning Federal Supports and Program Delivery for College
Access and Completion (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 15, 2016). According to
an Education official, this interagency letter was the product of the
Federal College Access and Completion Interagency Working Group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, neither of these documents included specific strategies or
examples of approaches states have used or can use to help potentially
eligible college students access SNAP benefits. Standards for Internal
Control in the Federal Government states that agency management should
internally communicate the necessary information to achieve the
program's objectives.\74\ In addition, part of the role of the FNS
national office is to work with its partners, including its regional
offices and the state SNAP agencies, to improve program administration
and ensure access to benefits for eligible individuals. FNS officials
told us FNS has several existing mechanisms for information sharing
with the regional offices and the state SNAP agencies, including policy
memos, webinars, and annual conferences. However, a senior FNS official
told us that she was not aware of any plans to share additional
information with state SNAP agencies or regional offices on this topic,
noting that college students are a relatively small population compared
to other SNAP recipients. As a result, state SNAP agencies may not be
aware of approaches other states have used that they could take to
assist college students experiencing food insecurity in accessing SNAP
benefits, and FNS may not be fulfilling its role to ensure program
access for college students who are eligible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ GAO-14-704G (http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-704G).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to noting how complicated the college student SNAP
eligibility rules are, most state higher education and SNAP policy
organization officials we interviewed remarked that the student
exemptions can make it challenging for many students who are food-
insecure to obtain SNAP benefits that could help them succeed in
college. Specifically, a few researchers and state higher education
officials said the eligibility restrictions were instituted when
college students were generally from higher-income households, whereas
many students enrolled in college today are from low-income households.
Several higher education officials and one researcher noted that when a
student qualifies for a student exemption by working 20 hours a week,
it can have a detrimental impact on college completion. For example,
research has shown that full-time college students who work more than
15 hours a week or who reduce their college course load and attend part
time in order to increase their work hours are less likely to complete
their degree or educational program.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ See, for example, Robert Bozick, ``Making It Through the First
Year of College: The Role of Students' Economic Resources, Employment,
and Living Arrangements,'' Sociology of Education, vol. 8, no. 3
(2007); and Sarah Blanchard Kyte, Who Does Work Work For? Understanding
Equity in Working Learner College and Career Success, (Iowa City, IA:
ACT Center for Equity in Learning, July 2017). Officials at all state
SNAP agencies, along with several college and state higher education
policy officials, as well as a few students that we interviewed also
noted that if college students were allowed to count unpaid internships
or similar volunteer work in their field of study to qualify for the
student exemption by working 20 hours per week, it could help support
their academic and future career success.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the same time, FNS officials and officials at one state SNAP
agency stressed the importance of having proper controls in place to
prevent certain students from improperly receiving benefits. A senior
FNS official noted that the college student restrictions were
established to prohibit traditional college students who are supported
by their parents from receiving SNAP benefits. This official said that
the student eligibility rules should ensure that middle-class and
wealthy students do not access SNAP while attending college. Further,
officials at a few organizations and one state SNAP agency we
interviewed expressed support for some of the student exemptions, such
as the exemption for college students who work 20 hours per week.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ Many Federal means-tested benefits programs require some low-
income recipients to work in order to receive benefits. For more
information, see our prior work on Federal means-tested benefits
programs, GAO, Federal Low-Income Programs: Eligibility and Benefits
Differ for Selected Programs Due to Complex and Varied Rules, GAO-17-
558 (http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-17-558) (Washington, D.C.: June
29, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusions
The Federal Government invests billions of dollars annually in
higher education through grants and loans to low-income students.
Partially as a result of this investment, a college education is
accessible to more low-income Americans than ever before. Despite this
Federal support, many low-income college students struggle to meet
their basic needs, including obtaining the food that they need, and may
drop out of college as a result. SNAP can be an important source of
support for low-income students, although it may not completely
ameliorate food insecurity. However, because the SNAP eligibility
requirements for college students can be difficult for students and
colleges to understand, students may be unaware of or misinformed about
their potential eligibility for SNAP. FNS has not made information that
clearly explains student SNAP eligibility requirements easily
accessible to students and college officials and, as a result, students
experiencing food insecurity may remain unaware that they could be
eligible for SNAP.
In addition, some states are exercising existing state
flexibilities to help students experiencing food insecurity to access
SNAP, but FNS does not actively share this information among state SNAP
agencies. By collecting and sharing information on approaches taken by
state SNAP agencies active in this area, FNS could potentially help
state SNAP agencies identify ways to help eligible students who are
experiencing food insecurity. Better supporting these students will
also help the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Education
meet their respective goals and make good use of the substantial
Federal investment in higher education while improving the health and
nutrition of individuals experiencing food insecurity.
Recommendations for Executive Action
We are making the following two recommendations to FNS:
The Administrator of FNS should make information on their website
regarding student SNAP eligibility requirements easier to understand
and more accessible, as a resource for colleges and state SNAP
agencies. (Recommendation 1)
The Administrator of FNS should coordinate with its regional
offices to collect and review information about existing SNAP
flexibilities and examples of approaches state SNAP agencies are taking
to assist eligible college students to access SNAP benefits, and share
such information with state SNAP agencies. (Recommendation 2)
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Agriculture
and the Department of Education for review and comment. The Department
of Education provided technical comments, which we incorporated into
the report as appropriate. On November 28, 2018, and December 7, 2018,
the Directors of the FNS SNAP Program Development Division and Office
of Employment and Training met with us to provide the agency's comments
orally. At the December 7, 2018 meeting, FNS officials told us they
partially concur with our recommendations and believe that FNS has
sufficient guidance in place for states to provide further information
to colleges. However, the agency agrees with the intent of GAO's
recommendations and plans to review its existing guidance to determine
if any improvements are warranted. We continue to believe that
additional action is necessary to address our recommendations. While
reviewing its existing information would be helpful, we believe that
changes to FNS's existing information are also needed to improve the
clarity and accessibility of information about SNAP student eligibility
requirements on FNS's website, and that FNS needs to work with its
regional offices to identify and share additional information about
state approaches to assist eligible college students with access to
SNAP benefits. In response to FNS officials' comments, we also
clarified both recommendations to focus more on actions that fall under
the responsibility of the FNS National Office. FNS also provided
technical comments, which we incorporated into the report as
appropriate.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the
contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until
30 days from the report date. At that time, we will send copies of this
report to the Secretaries of Agriculture, Education, appropriate
Congressional committees, and other interested parties. In addition,
the report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at http://
www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-7215 or larink@gao.gov. Contact points for our
Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on
the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to
this report are listed in appendix II.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Kathryn Larin,
Director, Education, Workforce, And Income Security.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
This report examines (1) what is known about the extent of food
insecurity among college students and their use of the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP); (2) how selected colleges are
addressing student food insecurity; and (3) the extent to which Federal
programs assist college students experiencing food insecurity. This
appendix provides details of the data sources used to answer these
questions, the analyses we conducted, and any limitations to our
analysis.
Overview
We used multiple methodologies to conduct this review. We conducted
a review of academic studies based on original research to determine
what is known about food insecurity among college students. We assessed
the quality of these studies by evaluating their research methods and
determined that the studies we included in our review were sufficiently
reliable for our use. To describe the prevalence of risk factors for
food insecurity among college students, we used data on student
characteristics from the nationally representative National
Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS). We assessed the reliability of
NPSAS data by reviewing existing information about the data and the
system that produced them and by interviewing agency officials
knowledgeable about the data. We determined that the data were
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of describing the prevalence of
risk factors for food insecurity among college students and students'
participation in SNAP.
To understand how selected colleges address student food
insecurity, we conducted four state site visits (California, Kentucky,
Massachusetts, and Michigan) selected based on whether colleges and/or
state government agencies were taking steps to address food insecurity
among students, and geographic diversity, among other criteria. In each
state, we visited public colleges and universities, where we met with
college officials, students, and researchers. We also interviewed state
higher education and SNAP officials, as well as experts from relevant
policy organizations. To assess Federal efforts, we identified Federal
programs that may assist college students in need of food, interviewed
officials from Education and USDA, and reviewed relevant Federal laws,
regulations, and agency guidance and program documents, as well as
Federal internal controls standards applicable to these programs.
Review of Studies
To understand what is currently known about the extent of food
insecurity among college students, we conducted an in-depth review of
studies. Our preliminary search in Scopus identified a recent
systematic literature review on food insecurity on college campuses.\1\
Upon reviewing the article's scope and methodology, we chose to update
rather than duplicate their efforts. We expanded the original search
terms to include ``higher education'' and ``postsecondary'' among
others, and searched two additional research databases (ProQuest and
Scopus) in addition to the original list of sources (MEDLINE,
PSYCHINFO, and Web of Science). We identified peer-reviewed journal
articles and other published research through this search. Through news
reports on food insecurity and interviews with researchers, we also
identified studies published up to August 31, 2018 that may not have
been included in our initial review. We included studies in our review
if they met the following criteria: (1) were based on research
conducted and published in the United States; (2) were published since
2007; and (3) contained original, direct estimates of food insecurity
rates among college students.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Meg Bruening, Katy Argo, Devon Payne-Sturges, and Melissa N.
Laska, ``The Struggle is Real: A Systematic Review of Food Insecurity
on Postsecondary Education Campuses,'' Journal of the Academy of
Nutrition and Dietetics, vol. 117, no. 11 (2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We identified a total of 35 studies that met these criteria and
conducted an initial review to determine if the studies met generally
accepted social science standards and were appropriate for our purpose
to provide information on the prevalence of food insecurity among
college students. We eliminated some studies if we determined that the
methods were not appropriate or rigorous--specifically, we concluded
that we could not report the results of four studies due to research
design limitations. For instance, some studies did not fully disclose
their methods, had small sample sizes, used data based on low survey
response rates, or did not attempt to correct for or address potential
biases in their methodology. For studies included in this report, we
performed an initial in-depth review of the findings and methods, and a
GAO methodologist performed a second review to confirm our reported
analysis of the findings. As a result, we determined 31 studies to be
of sufficient quality and we summarized the findings of these 31
studies in our report (see table 3).

Table 3: Studies Included in GAO's Review That Estimate College Student
Food Insecurity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year of
Title Authors publication
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Food Insecurity Chaparro, M. Pia, 2009
Prevalence Sahar S.
among College Zaghloul, Peter
Students at the Holck, Joannie
University of Dobbs
Hawai'i at
Manoa
2 Examining the Gains, Alisha, 2014
Role of Clifford A.
Financial Robb, Linda L
Factors, Knol, Stephanie
Resources and Sickler
Skills in
Predicting Food
Security Status
among College
Students
3 Prevalence and Patton-Lopez, 2014
Correlates of Megan M., Daniel
Food Insecurity F. Lopez-
among Students Cevallos, Doris
Attending a I. Cancel-
Midsize Rural Tirado, Leticia
University in Vazquez
Oregon
4 Hungry to Learn: Goldrick-Rab, 2015
Addressing Food Sara, Katharine
and Housing Broton, Daniel
Insecurity Eisenberg
Among
Undergraduates.
5 Food Insecurity Maroto, Maya E., 2015
Among Community Anastasia
College Snelling, Henry
Students: Linck
Prevalence and
Association
With Grade
Point Average
6 The Relationship Silva, Meghan R., 2015
Between Food Whitney L.
Security, Kleinert, A.
Housing Victoria
Stability, and Sheppard,
School Kathryn A.
Performance Cantrell, Darren
Among College J. Freeman-
Students in an Coppadge, Elena
Urban Tsoy, Tangela
University Roberts, and
Melissa Pearrow
7 Factors Related Bruening, Meg, 2016
to the High Stephanie
Rates of Food Brennhofer,
Insecurity Irene van
among Diverse, Woerden, Michael
Urban College Todd, Melissa
Freshmen Laska
8 Prevalence of Hillmer, Amelia 2016
Food Insecurity
Among College
Students at
Southeast
Missouri State
University
9 Predictors of Mirabitur, Erica, 2016
College-Student Karen E.
Food Security Peterson,
and Fruit and Colleen Rathz,
Vegetable Stacey Matlen,
Intake Differ Nicole Kasper
by Housing Type
10 The Prevalence Morris, Loran 2016
of Food Mary, Sylvia
Security and Smith, Jeremy
Insecurity Davis, Dawn
Among Illinois Bloyd Null
University
Students
11 A Household- Bentley, Bradley 2017
Based Food J.
Security Survey
of Western New
York College
Students to
Determine Its
Prevalence
12 Assessing Food Blagg, Kristin, 2017
Insecurity on Diane Whitmore
Campus Schanzenbach,
Craig Gundersen,
James P. Ziliak
13 The Evolution of Broton, Katharine 2017
Poverty in M.
Higher
Education:
Material
Hardship,
Academic
Success, and
Policy
Perspectives
14 The Relationship Dudley, Bethany 2017
Between Food
Insecurity and
Academic
Performance
Among San Jose
State
University
Students
15 Hungry and Goldrick-Rab, 2017
Homeless in Sara, Jed
College: Richardson,
Results from a Anthony
National Study Hernandez
of Basic Needs
Insecurity in
Higher
Education
16 Fostering Kinarsky, Alana. 2017
Success: R.
Understanding
the Experience
of Foster Youth
Undergraduates
17 Food Insecurity King, Jennifer A. 2017
Among College
Students:
Exploring the
Predictors of
Food Assistance
Resource Use
18 Food Insecurity, Knol, Linda L., 2017
Self-rated Cliff A., Robb,
Health, and Erin M.McKinley,
Obesity among Mary Wood
College
Students
19 Food Insecurity Martinez, Suzanna 2017
in California's M., Karen Webb,
Public Edward A.
University Frongillo,
System: What Lorrene D.
are the risk Ritchie
factors?
20 A High McArthur, Laura 2017
Prevalence of Helena, Lanae
Food Insecurity Ball, Ariel C.
Among Danek, Donald
University Holbert
Students in
Appalachia
Reflects a Need
for Educational
Interventions
and Policy
Advocacy.
21 Prevalence and Miles, Rhen, 2017
Predictors of Bowen McBeath,
Social Work Stephanie
Student Food Brockett, Paul
Insecurity Sorenson
22 Student Hunger Payne-Sturges, 2017
on Campus: Food Devon C.,
Insecurity Allison Tjaden,
Among College Kimberly M,
Students and Caldeira,
Implications Kathryn B.
for Academic Vincent, Amelia
Institutions M. Arria
23 Hungry to Learn: Bruening, Meg, 2018
the Prevalence Irene van
and Effects of Woerden, Michael
food Insecurity Todd, and
on Health Melissa N.
Behaviors and Laska.
Outcomes over
Time among a
Diverse Sample
of University
Freshmen
24 Study of Student Crutchfield, 2018
Basic Needs Rashida,
Jennifer Maguire
25 Why are Hungry El Zein, Aseel, 2018
College Anne E. Mathews,
Students Not Lisa House, and
Seeking Help? Karla P.
Predictors of Shelnutt.
and Barriers to
using an on-
Campus Food
Pantry.
26 Food Insecurity Forman, Michele 2018
and Hunger: R., Lauren D
Quiet Public Mangini, Yong-
Health Problems Quan Dong, Ladia
on Campus M Hernandez,
Karen L
Fingerman
27 Still Hungry and Goldrick-Rab, 2018
Homeless in Sara, Jed
College Richardson, Joel
Schneider,
Anthony
Hernandez Clare
Cady
28 Food Insecurity Hagedorn, Rebecca 2018
and Behavioral L., and Melissa
Characteristics D. Olfert
for Academic
Success in
Young Adults
Attending an
Appalachian
University
29 Food Insecurity Phillips, Erica, 2018
and Academic Anne McDaniel,
Disruption and Alicia
among College Croft.
Students.
30 Relationship Wattick, Rachel 2018
between Diet A., Rebecca L.
and Mental Hagedorn, and
Health in a Melissa D.
Young Adult Olfert.
Appalachian
College
Population.
31 Experiences With Wood, J. Luke, 2018
``Acute'' Food Frank Harris III
Insecurity
Among College
Students
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Studies GAO reviewed. D GAO-19-95.
Note: We selected studies for inclusion based on the following criteria:
(1) based on research conducted and published in the United States;
(2) published after 2007; and (3) contains original, direct estimates
of food insecurity rates among college students. While we determined
that these 31 studies were appropriate for our purpose to provide some
information regarding food insecurity among college students, all of
the studies have methodological limitations and none provide estimates
of food insecurity for the college student population in general.

While these 31 studies are of sufficient quality to provide
information on what is known about food insecurity among college
students, the generalizability of their findings require significant
caveats. Most of the survey results in these studies are not
generalizable to a population larger than their sample size, meaning
that the findings apply only to the respondents of the survey. None of
the studies in our review conducted non-response bias analyses or
attempted to address potential selection bias in the sample. Despite
these limitations, the studies collectively offer assessments of food
insecurity conducted on over 200 campuses in more than 30 states, at
both 2 and 4 year schools, and all but three of the studies used
adapted versions of the USDA food insecurity measure.
NPSAS Data Analysis
We analyzed data from the Department of Education's (Education)
National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS). Because no Federal
datasets contain food insecurity data specifically about college
students, we chose to analyze NPSAS data for the prevalence of risk
factors associated with food insecurity.\2\ Additionally, we used some
summary statistics from frequencies presented in the 2016 NPSAS data
codebook.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Federal data sets that collect data on food insecurity measure
food insecurity at a household level, which is limited for estimating
food insecurity among college students. Likewise, no Federal education
datasets currently contain food insecurity data for individual
students. Department of Education officials told us they are planning
to include a series of questions measuring student food insecurity in
the next NPSAS data collection in 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPSAS data contain nationally representative, detailed demographic
and financial aid data for college students enrolled in less than 2
year, 2 year, 4 year, and graduate postsecondary programs. These data
come from institutional records, government databases, and interviews
with students. Because the NPSAS data are based on probability samples,
estimates are calculated using the appropriate sample weights provided
which reflect the sample design. Each of these samples follows a
probability procedure based on random selection, and they represent
only one of a large number of samples that could have been drawn. Since
each sample could have provided different estimates, we express our
confidence in the precision of our particular sample's results as a 95
percent confidence interval. This is the interval that would contain
the actual population value for 95 percent of the samples we could have
drawn. Unless otherwise noted, all percentage estimates from the NPSAS
data analysis have 95 percent confidence intervals within plus or minus
5 percentage points of the percent estimate, and other numerical
estimates have confidence intervals within plus or minus 5 percent of
the estimate itself. We compared 95 percent confidence intervals to
identify statistically significant differences between specific
estimates and the comparison groups. The information provided in the
NPSAS data, particularly those from the interview portion of the study,
are self-reported and not all of the data are based on Federal
determinations or cross-verified with outside sources. For example,
students self-report their disability status, their hours worked, and
so on. Such self-reported data are subject to several sources of
nonsampling error, including the inability to obtain information about
all sample cases; difficulties of definition; differences in the
interpretation of questions; respondents' inability or unwillingness to
provide correct information; and errors made in collecting, recording,
coding, and processing data. These nonsampling errors can influence the
accuracy of information presented in the report, although the magnitude
of their effect is not known.
Identification of Risk Factors for Food Insecurity
In order to identify risk factors associated with food insecurity
among college students, we reviewed published articles and reports on
the topic of food insecurity and interviewed researchers, college and
state officials, and officials at relevant policy organizations. We
present the list of risk factors for food insecurity we considered in
table 4. Not all of the risk factors we identified have a corresponding
NPSAS variable. For example, NPSAS does not ask respondents about unmet
medical needs or childhood food insecurity. Additionally some of the
risk factors overlapped and were thus not included in our analysis. For
example, the NPSAS dataset contains multiple variables pertaining to
student and student household income, such as household income,
financial aid, and receipt of public benefits. Many indicators of low-
income status likely overlap (e.g., being eligible for a Pell Grant and
receiving other financial aid), and many students who have one
indicator will likely have others.

Table 4: Risk Factors Identified by GAO Associated with Food Insecurity
Among College Students
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Risk factor selected for GAO Description
analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disability Several studies and an expert in
one interview mentioned having a
disability as a correlate for food
insecurity; also it is one of the
exemptions for Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program
(SNAP) eligibility. Disability is
a stressor that may partially
overlap with the low-income
variable, but adds a unique
dimension of risk for food
insecurity.
First-generation student Mentioned in several studies as a
correlate of food insecurity; may
partially overlap with the low-
income variable.
Former foster youth Former foster youth are more likely
to be low income, housing
insecure, and food-insecure than
other types of students.
Homelessness/housing insecurity Several studies mention
homelessness/housing insecurity as
a strong correlate of food
insecurity. Particularly in high-
cost areas, this may be an
indicator of food insecurity risk
even among students who are not
technically low income.
Low income Multiple studies and experts in
multiple interviews mention that
having a low income is associated
with an increased risk of food
insecurity.
Single parent status Single parent status likely
overlaps with low-income status to
some degree; it is also indicative
of a unique stressor that may
increase food insecurity risk (it
is also one of the student
exemptions for SNAP eligibility).
Receiving SNAP Receipt of SNAP benefits is
positively associated with food
insecurity. While receiving SNAP
mitigates food insecurity, SNAP
recipients still have higher food
insecurity rates than the general
population.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Risk factors considered but not Reason excluded
included in analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Lack) of access to credit card No corresponding National
Postsecondary Student Aid Study
(NPSAS) variable.
Age or year in school Some studies identify different
years in school or different age
groups as having different risks
for food insecurity, but which
year is at higher risk varies from
study to study.
Exogenous shock (e.g., death of No corresponding NPSAS variable.
family member, income loss,
natural disaster, etc.)
Familial financial support/expected Experts mentioned lack of family
family contribution financial support as a strong
correlate of food insecurity and a
proxy for financial need. It is
also indicative of the level of
support a student's family can
provide to assist a student
experiencing food insecurity.
However, this factor is likely
highly correlated with low-income
status.
Food prep skills/other skills No corresponding NPSAS variable
Household receipt of Free and Research has found that household
Reduced Price Lunch in High School receipt of Free or Reduced Price
Lunch is positively associated
with food insecurity. However,
this variable broadly overlaps
with low-income status.
Living arrangements, such as on- or This factor may be correlated with
off-campus housing and whether food insecurity and is potentially
food provision is included in on- related to homelessness/housing
campus housing insecurity; however, homelessness
is a stronger correlate/indicator
of food insecurity risk.
Hours worked per week Two studies found that the number
of hours worked per week is
positively correlated with food
insecurity. However, working a
greater number of hours while in
college is likely correlated with
having a low-income.
Independent student status Independent student status may be a
proxy for having a low income or
lacking family resources. Other
variables may more directly
indicate low-income status.
Loan use May be a proxy for having a low
income, but is also very broad as
many non-low-income students also
take out student loans.
Race/Ethnicity Several studies have found that non-
whites and certain ethnicities
have higher risk of food
insecurity. Race is generally
considered a marker of other
underlying risk factors more
strongly associated with food
insecurity, including being low-
income. Because of this, we did
not include race as a risk factor
in our analysis.
Receipt of or eligibility for Pell Several studies have found that
Grants or financial aid broadly unmet financial need and Pell
speaking Grant receipt are both indicators
of overall need and are positively
associated with food insecurity.
The Federal Government determines
Pell Grant eligibility based on
income as reported on the Free
Application for Federal Student
Aid (FAFSA). However, this risk
factor largely overlaps with
having a low income.
Sex/Gender The research results are unclear on
the relationship between gender
and food insecurity.
Type of institution attended (2 Several studies have found that
year vs. 4 year, for-profit, community and vocational and
etc.). technical college students have
higher food insecurity rates than
students at 4 year colleges. We
report the results of our analysis
by college type, but do not
consider college type a risk
factor itself.
Undocumented/international students No corresponding NPSAS variable for
undocumented students, and few
variables available for documented
international students.
Unmet medical needs No corresponding NPSAS variable.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO analysis. D GAO-19-95.
Notes: GAO compiled this list of risk factors associated with food
insecurity among college students based on whether the risk factor was
mentioned in research or mentioned during interviews with researchers,
college officials, state and Federal officials, and relevant policy
organizations.

Although this is not an exhaustive list of risk factors,
individuals who experience one of the following seven characteristics
may be at risk of food insecurity: being disabled, homeless or housing
insecure, being a former foster youth, receiving SNAP benefits, being a
single parent, and being the first-generation in a student's family to
attend college.\3\ Table 5 shows how we compared these risk factors
with corresponding variables from the 2016 NPSAS data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Participation in SNAP is correlated with both having a low-
income and with food insecurity; studies show SNAP recipients are more
food-insecure than the general population even though they receive SNAP
benefits. This is partially because food-insecure people choose to
participate in SNAP and partially because receiving SNAP does not
completely ameliorate food insecurity. According to research by USDA,
participating in SNAP for 6 months was associated with a decrease in
food insecurity of 12.7 percentage points. See James Mabli, Jim Ohls,
Lisa Dragoset, Laura Castner, and Betsy Santos, Measuring the Effect of
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Participation on Food
Security, a report prepared by Mathematica Policy Research at the
request of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition
Service (Washington, D.C.: August 2013).

Table 5. Selected Risk Factors and Corresponding Variables in the 2016
National Postsecondary Student Aid Study Data Set
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Risk factor NPSAS variable name Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disability a DISABIL2 Indicates student has some
type of disability or
condition.
Homeless/housing HOMELESS2 Includes some students who
insecure were determined by a
professional to be
homeless (via the Free
Application for Federal
Student Aid or FAFSA),
but predominantly
measures student-
determined ``risk of
homelessness.'' This is
not a direct measure of
homelessness.
Former foster youth ORPHAN2 Indicates student is an
orphan, ward of court,
emancipated minor, or in
legal guardianship.
Receiving SNAP b FEDBENA Indicates whether any
member of the student's
household received Food
Stamp (SNAP) Benefits
during the 2013 or 2014
calendar year.
Single parent status SINGLPAR Identifies independent
students who were single
parents/caretakers during
the 2015-2016 academic
year.
Low-Income PCTPOV Indicates total 2014
income as a percentage of
the Federal poverty level
thresholds for 2014. For
our purposes, low income
is defined as having a
household income level at
or below 130 percent of
the Federal poverty
level.
First generation PAREDUC Indicates the highest
student level of education
achieved by a parent,
stepparent, or guardian
of the student. Per
previous Department of
Education studies, we
define first generation
as college students whose
parents' maximum
educational attainment
was a high school diploma
or less. Note that
students who did not know
their parent's highest
education were not
counted as first
generation students.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO analysis. D GAO-19-95.
a The data are self-reported. The student may not be eligible for or
receiving Federal disability benefits.
b The data are reported by the student and their family on the FAFSA or
during the student interview. National level, individual SNAP
enrollment data are not available to verify this variable, as states
provide aggregate statistics to FNS.

Because our analysis does not include some of the risk factors for
food insecurity listed in table 4, our findings may underestimate the
number of college students who have a risk factor for food insecurity.
For example, we heard in some of our interviews with researchers and in
our discussions with students that being an undocumented or an
international student was a risk factor for food insecurity. Such
students are generally ineligible for Federal financial aid and are
restricted in the type of other Federal aid they can receive.
Undocumented students are also more likely than other students to be
poor. However, NPSAS does not contain detailed data about undocumented
or international students, so we could not include this risk factor for
food insecurity in our analysis. The risk factors for food insecurity
we included in our analysis may also be correlated with one another and
can co-occur. For example, youth who were formerly in foster care are
more likely than other youth to be low-income.\4\ Indeed, the
prevalence of additional risk factors for food insecurity is higher
among low-income than wealthier students. We did not analyze the extent
to which some risk factors are more strongly associated with food
insecurity than others or attempt to rank or weight the relative
importance of risk factors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Most foster and homeless youth have incomes within the lowest
income quartile of all college-enrolled youth. See GAO, Higher
Education: Actions Needed to Improve Access to Federal Financial
Assistance for Homeless and Foster Youth, GAO-16-343 (http://
www.gao.gov/products/GAO-16-343) (Washington, D.C.: May 19, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Student SNAP Eligibility
To calculate potential student SNAP eligibility, we first
calculated the number of students who might qualify for SNAP based upon
having a household income at or below 130 percent of the Federal
poverty line, which is the standard income requirement for households
that do not include a member who is 60 years of age or older or
disabled to qualify for SNAP benefits. Next, we analyzed NPSAS
variables to identify those that corresponded with SNAP student
eligibility rules. We deemed all students who met the income
requirements, were enrolled in school at least half time, and met one
of the student eligibility exemptions we were able to identify in the
data as potentially eligible for SNAP.
However, our analysis has limitations and does not precisely
identify all students who are SNAP eligible. The 2016 NPSAS data set
contains several variables that match up closely with certain student
eligibility exemptions. For example, the exemptions related to age,
having young dependents, working 20 hours per week, and receiving
certain Federal benefits have corresponding NPSAS variables (see table
6). For two of the exemptions, we used variables from the NPSAS data
set that do not perfectly correspond to the statute but were the
closest available proxies in the data. For the eligibility exemption
that covers parents caring for a child 6-11 years old who are unable to
obtain childcare to attend school and work, we identified students who
have a child 6-11 years old and indicate they have no paid childcare.
However, some individuals may have unpaid childcare, such as family
members, and be able to work and attend school despite not having paid
childcare, meaning they would not meet this SNAP student eligibility
exemption. For the disability exemption, we used the NPSAS variable
based on an interview question that asks students if they have a mental
or physical disability. However, because of different definitions, the
NPSAS disability variable may include students with disabilities who
would not qualify for the SNAP student exemption related to disability.
Specifically, to qualify for this SNAP student exemption, the student
must not be ``physically or mentally fit,'', while the NPSAS interview
question asks students if they have some type of disability or
condition, including a long-lasting condition such as serious
difficulty hearing; blindness or serious difficulty seeing; difficulty
concentrating, remembering or making decisions, a serious learning
disability, depression, or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder; or
serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs. As a result, we may
overestimate the number of students who would qualify for the student
exemption related to having a disability or caring for a child age 6-
11. Last, NPSAS does not contain a variable to capture the student
eligibility exemption related to enrollment in certain programs aimed
at employment, such as the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act or
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families employment and training
programs. Therefore, we could not identify any students who met this
eligibility exemption for SNAP and may have therefore underestimated
the number of students who were potentially eligible for SNAP.

Table 6: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Eligibility
Exemptions for College Students and Corresponding Variables in the 2016
National Postsecondary Student Aid Study Data Set
------------------------------------------------------------------------
College student SNAP Variable description and
exemption NPSAS variable limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under age 18 or age 50 AGE Provides the student's
or older age as of 12/31/2015.
Parent caring for a DEPCHILD, DEPYNG DEPCHILD identifies
child under age 6 students who dependents
who are children; DEPYNG
provides the age of the
student's youngest child
during the 2015-16
academic year.
Parent caring for a DEPCHILD, DEPYNG, DEPCARE indicates whether
child 6-11 years old DEPCARE the student had
who is unable to dependent children in
obtain child care to paid childcare during
attend school and work the 2015-16 academic
year. Students who have
a child between 6 and 11
and indicate they do not
have paid childcare were
identified as meeting
this condition. However,
some individuals may
have unpaid childcare
that allows them to work
and attend school, which
these variables do not
capture.
Single parent caring SINGLPAR, DEPYNG, The student's single
for a child under 12 ATTEND2 parent status, age of
years old and enrolled their youngest child,
full-time and whether they are
enrolled full time.
Working a minimum of 20 JOBHOUR Based on the following
hours per week student interview
question asked of each
job the student has held
while enrolled, ``How
many hours per week have
you usually worked [for
this employer] while you
have attended school?''
Excludes work study
hours.
Receiving any Federal TFEDWRK Total amount of Federal
Work-Study funds work study awarded for
the 2015-2016 academic
year.
Receiving Temporary FEDBEND Whether any member of the
Assistance for Needy student's household
Families (TANF) received Temporary Aid
benefits for Needy Families
(TANF) benefits during
the 2013 or 2014
calendar year.
Not physically or DISABIL2 Student has self-reported
mentally fit (e.g., some type of disability
have a disability) or condition; not based
on a Federal disability
determination.
Enrolled in certain N/A No corresponding NPSAS
programs aimed at Variables
employment, including
TANF work programs,
Workforce Innovation
and Opportunity Act
Title I programs, and
others
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO analysis and 2016 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study
Documentation. D GAO-19-95.

Additionally, SNAP eligibility for college students depends not
only on income and meeting a student exemption, but also on other
determinations such as the level of the individual's financial assets,
including savings and any state policy waivers that may apply to the
individual's eligibility. Given that our analysis relied on self-
reported information, and did not capture all aspects of student SNAP
eligibility, we did not make any legal determinations about whether
individuals were eligible for SNAP, and therefore our analysis can be
characterized as providing only a rough estimate of those students who
may potentially be eligible for SNAP benefits.
State Site Visits
To understand how selected colleges address student food
insecurity, we conducted four state site visits (California, Kentucky,
Massachusetts, and Michigan). We selected these states based on the
following criteria:

Mentioned in interviews with researchers or government
officials as being a state that is: actively addressing college
food insecurity, or has at least one public college that is
taking action to address food insecurity among college students
(number of mentions).

School or state program on hunger or food insecurity
featured in research papers or policy briefs (number of
mentions).

FNS data on food insecurity rates in the state, to indicate
whether food insecurity among college students might also be a
problem (rank by state).

FNS data on SNAP enrollment and participation in the state,
to indicate the level of SNAP usage in the state (rank by
state).

FNS information regarding the number of SNAP waivers a state
has received, as a proxy for SNAP policy activity in the state
(rank by state).

We also sought geographic diversity in our site visit states. To
achieve this, we created summary rank ordering of states based upon our
criteria, then, from those states that ranked in the top 15, we
selected one state from the Northeast, South, Midwest, and West Census
regions. Some of our criteria were purely qualitative in nature, such
as information from interviews, research papers, and policy briefs
regarding states and colleges with promising practices. Our site visit
selection focused specifically on states and colleges with documented
activity addressing college student food insecurity, and is therefore
biased toward those that had taken action to address college student
food insecurity. Our selection strategy did not capture situations
where there was high food insecurity among students but the college or
state was taking no action to address it, nor did we seek to identify
or visit locations where food insecurity had not been identified as a
problem. In addition to our site visits, we conducted interviews with
officials from one college in Texas and one college in Ohio to learn
about specific campus food insecurity initiatives in these states.
In each site visit state, we visited several colleges that were
taking action to address food insecurity among their student
populations, selected based on recommendations from researchers and
college officials. We also considered geographic proximity when
selecting colleges to visit. Overall, we spoke with officials
representing 14 2 and 4 year public colleges (12 in-person and two
telephone interviews).\5\ In each of our site visit states, we visited
at least one large public university and one community college. See
table 7 for a list of the 2 and 4 year colleges we interviewed in each
state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ In addition, we met with one private college during the course
of our study. We met with this 4 year private work college to learn
about their unique approach to meeting their students' basic needs.
This college is not included in our summary of actions taken by
colleges because it fell outside of our report's focus on public 2 and
4 year colleges.

Table 7: List of 2 and 4 year Selected Colleges that GAO Contacted, by
State
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 year colleges 4 year colleges
State interviewed interviewed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
California Skyline College California State
University, Sacramento
University of
California, Berkeley
Kentucky Maysville Community and Eastern Kentucky
Technical College University
University of Kentucky
Massachusetts Bunker Hill Community University of
College Massachusetts, Boston
Michigan Mott Community College Eastern Michigan
Washtenaw Community University
College University of Michigan,
Dearborn
Ohio Cuyahoga Community
College
Texas Amarillo College
----------------------------------------------------
Total 7 7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO. D GAO-19-95.

At colleges, we asked members of the leadership team, financial aid
officers, student affairs administrators, and other staff members
questions about how they recognize, measure, and address college
student food insecurity. We also conducted discussion groups with
students at seven colleges we visited and asked about their experiences
with food insecurity and Federal assistance programs, such as SNAP.
Students were invited by college officials to participate in these
meetings. In each state we visited, we also met with officials from the
state agencies that administer SNAP and any state governmental
agencies, such as those overseeing higher education or involved in
addressing food insecurity among college students. Lastly, in each site
visit state, we identified and interviewed staff members at policy
organizations, such as legal policy institutes or hunger advocacy
groups, involved in efforts to address food insecurity among college
students.
Assessing Federal Efforts to Address Food Insecurity
We assessed the extent to which Federal programs assist college
students experiencing food insecurity by reviewing relevant Federal
laws, regulations, and agency guidance and program documents related to
specific SNAP requirements for college students and we interviewed FNS
national office officials, including representatives of the Divisions
of SNAP Program Development, Employment and Training, and Retailer
Policy. We also interviewed FNS regional office officials in four of
the seven FNS regions about their experiences working with the FNS
national office and with state SNAP agencies in their regions to
address college student food insecurity and access to SNAP.
We also sent an email to all 51 state SNAP agency directors (all 50
states plus the District of Columbia) to ask about any actions their
state has taken to address college student food insecurity. We received
responses from 50 of the 51 state SNAP agencies, for a 98 percent
response rate.\6\ This email inquiry was conducted in March and April
2018 and may not include all state actions that have occurred since
April 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The Michigan State SNAP agency did not respond to our email.
However, we interviewed the Michigan state SNAP agency director during
the course of our review and incorporated the state's actions into our
report, as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We conducted in-depth interviews with officials at five state SNAP
agencies and asked about any specific policies or actions their
agencies have taken to address college student food insecurity or to
assist potentially eligible college students to access SNAP. We
conducted these interviews in person with state SNAP agencies during
our four state site visits, and interviewed the Washington state SNAP
agency by phone.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ We interviewed the Washington State SNAP agency director
because of Washington's extensive SNAP Employment & Training Program
partnerships with colleges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We conducted this performance audit from July 2017 to December 2018
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
GAO Contact
Kathryn Larin, (202) 512-7215 or larink@gao.gov.
Staff Acknowledgments
In addition to the contact named above, Michelle L. St. Pierre
(Assistant Director), Nora Boretti (Analyst-In-Charge), Jessica K.
Rider, and Stephen C. Yoder made significant contributions to this
report. Also contributing to this report were Holly A. Dye, Barbara J.
El Osta, Sarah C. Gilliland, Alison E. Grantham, Gina M. Hoover, Saida
B. Hussain, Sheila R. McCoy, John W. Mingus, Jr., Mimi Nguyen, Monica
P. Savoy, Benjamin A. Sinoff, Almeta Spencer, Rachel R. Stoiko, Elaine
L. Vaurio, and David A. Watsula.
GAO's Mission
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the Federal Government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates Federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's website (https://www.gao.gov). Each weekday
afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony,
and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted
products, go to https://www.gao.gov and select ``E-mail Updates.''
Order by Phone
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO's actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black
and white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO's website,
https://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm.
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077,
or TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
Connect with GAO
Contact:

Website: https://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7700
Congressional Relations
Orice Williams Brown, Managing Director, WilliamsO@gao.gov, (202)
512-4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room
7125, Washington, D.C. 20548
Public Affairs
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548
Strategic Planning and External Liaison
James-Christian Blockwood, Managing Director, spel@gao.gov, (202)
512-4707 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room
7814, Washington, D.C. 20548

[all]