U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

89–880 PDF 2014

HEARING TO REVIEW THE 

IMPLEMENTATION OF SECTION 4022 OF THE 

AGRICULTURAL ACT OF 2014: PILOT 

PROJECTS TO REDUCE DEPENDENCY AND 

INCREASE WORK REQUIREMENTS AND WORK 

EFFORTS UNDER THE SUPPLEMENTAL 

NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 17, 2014 

Serial No. 113–22 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture 

agriculture.house.gov 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma, Chairman 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, 

Vice Chairman 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas 

GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia 

SCOTT R. TIPTON, Colorado 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York 

VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

KRISTI L. NOEM, South Dakota 

DAN BENISHEK, Michigan 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

STEPHEN LEE FINCHER, Tennessee 

DOUG LAMALFA, California 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

VANCE M. MCALLISTER, Louisiana 

COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota, Ranking 

Minority Member 

MIKE MCINTYRE, North Carolina 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

JIM COSTA, California 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio 

JAMES P. MCGOVERN, Massachusetts 

SUZAN K. DELBENE, Washington 

GLORIA NEGRETE MCLEOD, California 

FILEMON VELA, Texas 

MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico 

ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

PETE P. GALLEGO, Texas 

WILLIAM L. ENYART, Illinois 

JUAN VARGAS, California 

CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

NICOLE SCOTT, Staff Director 

KEVIN J. KRAMP, Chief Counsel 

TAMARA HINTON, Communications Director 

ROBERT L. LAREW, Minority Staff Director 

(II) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Lucas, Hon. Frank D., a Representative in Congress from Oklahoma, opening 

statement .............................................................................................................. 1 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 3 

McGovern, Hon. James P., a Representative in Congress from Massachusetts, 

submitted statement ............................................................................................ 5 

Peterson, Hon. Collin C., a Representative in Congress from Minnesota, opening statement ........................................................................................................ 4 

WITNESS

Vilsack, Hon. Thomas ‘‘Tom’’ J., Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Washington, D.C. ................................................................................................. 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 7 

Submitted questions ......................................................................................... 39 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Southerland II, Hon. Steve, a Representative in Congress from Florida, submitted statement .................................................................................................. 39 

(1) 

HEARING TO REVIEW THE 

IMPLEMENTATION OF SECTION 4022 OF THE 

AGRICULTURAL ACT OF 2014: PILOT 

PROJECTS TO REDUCE DEPENDENCY 

AND INCREASE WORK REQUIREMENTS AND 

WORK EFFORTS UNDER THE SUPPLEMENTAL 

NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 2014 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in Room 

1300 of the Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Frank D. Lucas 

[Chairman of the Committee] presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Lucas, Goodlatte, King, 

Neugebauer, Rogers, Conaway, Gibbs, Austin Scott of Georgia, Tipton, Crawford, Hartzler, Noem, LaMalfa, Davis, Yoho, Peterson, 

David Scott of Georgia, Costa, Walz, Schrader, Fudge, McGovern, 

DelBene, Negrete McLeod, Vela, Lujan Grisham, Kuster, Nolan, 

Enyart, Bustos, and Courtney. 

Staff present: Josh Mathis, Kevin Kramp, Mary Nowak, Nicole 

Scott, Tamara Hinton, John Konya, Andy Baker, Evan Jurkovich, 

Lisa Shelton, Liz Friedlander, Matthew MacKenzie, Robert L. 

Larew, and Riley Pagett, 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK D. LUCAS, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM OKLAHOMA 

The CHAIRMAN. This full Committee hearing will come to order. 

Good morning. Today we are here to discuss the implementation of 

the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program work pilots that 

are a part of the Agricultural Act of 2014. We appreciate the participation of Secretary Vilsack who is with us to discuss these efforts to date. We can all agree on one thing: We want to help the 

economy where Americans are working and earning a sustainable 

wage to support their families. Short of that ideal, we want to help 

Americans get back to work. 

In the period between 2008 and 2014 Farm Bills, we saw our 

economy experience a significant recession. We watched as our nation’s safety net was pushed to its extremes, reaching record levels 

across a number of government programs, including SNAP. 

Today we are still experiencing what some have described as the 

worst recovery ever because in no other recession did it take this 

2 

long to recover lost jobs. Some progress has been made. The unemployment rate is down from its peak of ten percent in October of 

2009 to the more recent report of 6.1 percent. However, we have 

only seen a small decrease in the number of SNAP participants. 

We know that many families on SNAP are working, but there 

are others who have not been able to find employment or earn 

enough to no longer require Federal food assistance. 

The pilot projects we are talking about today are a response to 

that need, incorporating multiple provisions initially contained in 

the House-passed farm bill. The Agricultural Act provides for up to 

ten states with up to $200 million to operate pilot projects designed 

to help SNAP recipients prepare for and to go to work. The law explains that the approved pilot projects must cover a range of geographic areas, include a mix of voluntary and mandatory participation and include an assortment of methods designed to promote 

work. 

The point of the pilots covering a range of strategies each within 

a rigorous evaluation is to ensure Congress has the necessary information to make informed decisions about how to help SNAP recipients in the future. 

For example, through experimentation in cash welfare, we have 

learned the success of Work First Programs. These programs are 

designed to get individuals into work as soon as possible and offer 

them additional training so they can improve their earnings. We 

expect these sorts of proven Work First Programs to be among the 

pilot projects that are approved. 

On August 25, USDA released the request for applications and 

requests for proposals for the SNAP work pilots setting into motion 

the next phase of implementation. I am pleased the Department 

has done significant outreach to the states. I look forward to hearing about USDA’s efforts to meet the requirements of the legislation. And again, I appreciate the Secretary being here today to provide clarifications and additional information on the work we have 

done and will continue to do as these pilots operate over the next 

3 years. 

And now before I yield to the Ranking Member for any remarks 

he might have, I would once again indulge him as he used to indulge me when I was the Ranking Member starting 6 years ago almost and now in my 10 years as Chairman for a personal thought. 

This may well be the last full Committee hearing, may well be the 

last full Committee hearing we have in the 113th Session of Congress, and under House Republican rules, when we reconvene in 

the 114th, most assuredly there will be new leadership on my side 

of the room. 

So I would like to take a moment to thank the Secretary first for 

the help that he provided in some of the most critical parts of developing the 2012, then the 2013, then the 2014 Farm Bill that ultimately became the Agricultural Act of 2014. Outside of this room, 

very few people thought we could get our work done. Very few people as the years rolled along held out much hope or expectation 

that we would accomplish our assignment. And the Secretary’s part 

in that, I very much appreciate, Mr. Secretary. 

And I would also say to the Ranking Member, having been 

your—I guess the term is co-pilot for 2 years and now having had 

3 

your assistance for the last 4 years, I think it can be fairly said 

that the Committee itself rose to the occasion and worked in a 

fashion that accomplished what we needed to do. And I very much 

appreciate the Ranking Member for that. And I would say to the 

Members on both sides of the aisle as I have said before many 

times, good people of different opinions working to try to achieve 

the common goal is still what this legislative body should be all 

about. Over the course of those 21⁄2 years of legislating we did that. 

Now, the folks who will sit at this table next session will continue the process of implementation and working with you, Mr. 

Secretary. But I do want to express my appreciation to all of you 

and to note that whatever may happen next year, I intend to continue to work with everyone to try and make sure we have the 

right agricultural policies for all the good citizens. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lucas follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK D. LUCAS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM OKLAHOMA

Good morning. 

Today we are here to discuss the implementation of the Supplemental Nutrition 

Assistance Program work pilots that are a part of the Agricultural Act of 2014. 

We appreciate the participation of Secretary Vilsack who is with us to discuss 

these efforts to date. 

We can all agree on one thing: we want a healthy economy where Americans are 

working and earning a sustainable wage to support their families. Short of that 

ideal, we want to help Americans get back to work. 

In the period between the 2008 and the 2014 Farm Bills, we saw our economy 

experience a significant recession. We watched as our nation’s safety net was 

pushed to its extremes, reaching record levels across a number of government programs, including SNAP. Today, we are still experiencing what some have described 

as the ‘‘worst recovery ever’’ because in no other recession did it take this long to 

recover lost jobs. 

Some progress has been made; the unemployment rate is down from its peak of 

ten percent in October 2009 to the most recent report of 6.1 percent. However, we 

have only seen a small decrease in the number of SNAP participants. We know that 

many families on SNAP are working, but there are others who have not been able 

to find employment or earn enough to no longer require Federal food assistance. 

The work pilots we will be talking about today are a response to that need, incorporating multiple provisions initially contained in the House-passed farm bill. 

The Agricultural Act provides up to ten states, with up to $200 million, to operate 

pilot projects designed to help SNAP recipients prepare for and go to work. The law 

explains that the approved pilot projects must cover a range of geographic areas, 

include a mix of voluntary and mandatory participation, and include an assortment 

of methods designed to promote work. 

The point of the pilots covering a range of strategies, each with a rigorous evaluation, is to ensure Congress has the necessary information to make informed decisions about how to help SNAP recipients in the future. For example, through experimentation in cash welfare, we have learned of the success of ‘‘work first’’ programs. 

These programs are designed to get individuals into work as soon as possible and 

then offer additional training so they can improve their earnings. We expect these 

sorts of proven ‘‘work first’’ programs to be among the pilot projects that are approved. 

On August 25th, USDA released the Request for Applications and Request for 

Proposals for the SNAP work pilots setting into motion the next phase of implementation. I am pleased that the Department has done significant outreach to states. 

I look forward to hearing more about USDA’s efforts to meet the requirements of 

the legislation. 

Again, I appreciate the Secretary being here today to provide clarifications and 

additional information on the work they have done and will continue to do as these 

pilots operate over the next 3 years. 

I will now yield to Ranking Member Peterson for any remarks he may have. 

4 

The CHAIRMAN. With that, I would yield to the Ranking Member 

for any remarks he may have. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. COLLIN C. PETERSON, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM MINNESOTA 

Mr. PETERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to commend you for the outstanding job that you did leading us through 

this process. I am proud of what we have been able to accomplish 

here and the way we have been able to work together to make 

things happen. And thank God we got the bill done when we did 

because if we were trying to struggle with it now, it would probably 

never happen. 

I recently was at a meeting and heard a lot of complaining about 

how we couldn’t get anything done and how screwed up everything 

was up here and so forth, which I agree with. And I said, what 

needs to happen out there is that they need to just let the Agriculture Committee be in charge of getting this government 

straightened out, and we will make it happen. And I really believe 

that we could do that, because we know how to work together, and 

we know how to sit down and figure out what both sides need and 

can live with. Our colleagues on some of these other committees 

could learn a valuable lesson from the Agriculture Committee. And 

so I commend all of my colleagues for their work and especially the 

Chairman for leading us. I am not a big fan of these term limits 

myself, but that is not my business. So I am on your side. 

Also, I want to thank the Secretary. He has done a great job over 

at the Department for the years that he has been there. He was 

very helpful during the farm bill. He was there to help when he 

could help, and he stayed out of the way when that needed to happen. And that didn’t always happen in the past. You have been a 

great ally to work with, it has been helpful to the Committee. 

Thank you for your leadership at the Department and for the people at the Department for the work that they have done to help us 

and our staffs. I also want to say that our staffs are part of the 

reason that we are successful. Not only can we work together, our 

staffs have been able to work together, and that doesn’t happen in 

some of the other committees, either. 

So that said, I welcome the Secretary here. And these work pilot 

programs that we are looking at today are an example of the bipartisan cooperative work that the Agriculture Committee does so 

well. We authorized these pilot projects because we value work, 

and we want to put people back to work. The farm bill invested 

$200 million to develop and improve innovative approaches to 

SNAP employment and training. The bill provides USDA with a 

clear direction for implementing these pilots and ensures that funding will create sustainable jobs by requiring reporting on set performance goals. 

Keeping a close eye on USDA’s farm bill implementation should 

be one of this Committee’s top priorities, and it is. As for the job 

the Secretary and the Department are doing in implementing the 

bill, I have been around here to watch implementations, and this 

is the quickest, most focused implementation that I have ever seen. 

So we appreciate what you are doing. 

5 

As I understand it, the Department is still awaiting work pilot 

project applications. So I wonder if we might be getting a bit ahead 

of ourselves here today. But of course, it is always good to keep 

educating ourselves, particularly when it comes to SNAP, and I do 

hope that we can keep the focus on education and oversight and 

resist some of these outside pressures I hear about to making 

changes. It is just not realistic. Some people talk about opening up 

the bill and make changes. That isn’t going to happen, and if it 

ever did, it would be a recipe for disaster. 

We need to keep working on oversight and working with the Department. 

So, I thank the Chairman for holding today’s hearing and look 

forward to the Secretary’s testimony. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the Ranking Member. The chair would 

request that other Members submit their opening statements for 

the record so that the witness may begin his testimony and to ensure that there is ample time for his responses. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McGovern follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES P. MCGOVERN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM MASSACHUSETTS

Secretary Vilsack, thank you for being with us today for this hearing. I’ll start 

by saying that it’s premature for us to even be having today’s hearing. USDA just 

put out a request for applications for the pilot projects on August 25th and the final 

deadline for submission isn’t until the end of November. So, we really have nothing 

new to evaluate on work pilots. 

I sincerely hope that today’s hearing isn’t just another opportunity for some on 

this Committee to publicly bash SNAP and the people who rely on this program to 

eat. I know it’s a popular punching bag, especially as we get closer to Election Day. 

Let me remind everyone here of some of the facts. There are 49 million people 

in this country—the richest country in the history of the world—who are hungry. 

Nearly 16 million are children. 

And, the overwhelming majority of SNAP recipients who can work do. Let’s keep 

in mind that nearly 70 percent of SNAP recipients are not expected to work because 

they are either elderly, disabled or children. 

Yesterday, we learned that the poverty rate fell slightly in 2013 to 14.5 percent. 

That’s a good thing. But, while our economy is slowly recovering from the Great Recession, we know, however, that economic gains haven’t been even across all segments of the population. Wages have risen much more slowly or—even stagnated— 

for low and middle income workers. 

These are the same families who are working but who earn so little that they still 

qualify for SNAP. 

And, even though our economic recovery has been slow and uneven, CBO projects 

that the number of SNAP recipients will continue to fall in the coming years as our 

economy improves. 

Like other Members of the Committee, I’m very interested in seeing what we 

learn from these pilots. But, it’s important to focus on the big picture of how to help 

SNAP recipients increase their earnings. We need to grow our overall economy and 

make sure that economic gains benefit all workers. 

If we grow this economy, create good jobs, and reduce unemployment, won’t many 

SNAP households leave the program because they are better off? And, those who 

remain will have more employment and income? 

The CHAIRMAN. With that, I would like to welcome to the witness 

table the Honorable Tom Vilsack, Secretary of the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture. Mr. Secretary, please begin when you are ready. 

STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS ‘‘TOM’’ J. VILSACK, SECRETARY, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Secretary VILSACK. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and I 

want to thank you and Representative Peterson for acknowledging 

6 

the important and good work that USDA staff has been doing on 

the implementation of this farm bill, and we really welcome the opportunity to speak to the Committee today on the status of the 

pilot programs to improve our efforts to link those on SNAP who 

are looking for work to get a job and those who have a job, perhaps, 

to get an even better job, ultimately designed to reduce the reliance 

and need for SNAP for those families. 

I would be remiss if I didn’t echo the comments of the Chairman 

and the Ranking Member in expressing my thanks to the Chairman and the Ranking Member for their great leadership in getting 

the farm bill through the process and for this Committee’s work in 

making sure that it happened. This is a bill that I think all of you 

can justifiably be proud of having passed. We are taking very seriously our responsibility to implement this bill. We have, as you 

well know, implemented our Disaster Assistance Program: 262,000 

producers have already received assistance, over $2.6 billion. We 

are excited about the new conservation programs, the RCPP Program and the new easement program. The research foundation has 

been launched. We have STAX and SCO out. We are working on 

the dairy program and making sure folks understand how to sign 

up for that, and we anticipate and expect very soon to have information about ARC and PLC out to the countryside. 

So this is a bill that you all can be extraordinarily proud of, and 

obviously, it would not have happened without strong leadership 

from the Chairman and the Ranking Member and Members of this 

Committee. So I am honored to be a part of this process. 

And we are excited about the work on the E&T Program. There 

are roughly five million able-bodied recipients without dependents 

who are currently receiving SNAP, Mr. Chairman, and a good 

amount of the $200 million that you all have allocated for this effort needs to be directed at trying to find opportunities for those 

individuals. 

We are going to take a diverse approach as you have requested 

and suggested and directed. We are going to look at demand-driven 

job opportunities. We are going to look at registered apprenticeships, career pathways. We are going to look at the barriers that 

may exist from job search skills to basic skills. We will indeed be 

geographically diverse in our approach. 

The goal is to find jobs for those who want jobs and need jobs 

and are without jobs and to find better jobs for those who are currently working. Thirty-one percent of SNAP households have some 

form of earnings. So obviously, there is still an opportunity there 

as well. 

There will be a strong evaluation component as you have proposed, and there is significant accountability, and we welcome the 

oversight of this Committee. It is an important responsibility that 

you have, and it is an important responsibility that we have. 

This effort will be collaborative. We will be working with state 

and local governments, nonprofit organizations in an effort to try 

to make this work, to try to find the best possible practices that 

can then be used to encourage other states to embrace these best 

practices. 

There will be a strong outreach effort as there has already been. 

I am making calls to governors personally to let them know about 

7 

this program. We will have a webinar on September 24 which is 

2 days before the Letter of Intent deadline of September 26. Applications will be due on November 24, and awards are likely to be 

made on February 23, 2015. 

We look at a program that frankly, in the employment and training area, needs more focus, and the great thing about what you all 

have done is it has given us an opportunity to encourage states to 

do an even better job. Frankly we are still leaving resources on the 

table, and we are not as aggressive as we need to be, and this E&T 

Program will allow us to be more aggressive. 

SNAP numbers are coming down, which is good. It is an effective 

tool to reduce poverty. We know that as a result of SNAP seven 

million fewer people are below the poverty line. We know that 2⁄3

of those receiving SNAP are children, senior citizens, and adults 

with disabilities, and seven percent are veterans, and we have the 

lowest fraud and error rate in the history of the program. 

So we are excited about this opportunity, and again, I want to 

extend my personal thanks to the Chairman for his friendship, direction, and counsel in terms of the farm bill and to the Ranking 

Member as well. I have enjoyed working with both of you, and I 

look forward to continuing to work with this great Committee. You 

have many reasons to be proud of this farm bill. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Vilsack follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS ‘‘TOM’’ J. VILSACK, SECRETARY, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee, for the chance to 

present to you on the important opportunity provided in Section 4022 of the Agricultural Act of 2014, relating to state pilot projects to reduce dependency and increase 

work effort under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). 

Public debate about the issue of work and its relationship to Federal assistance 

can be contentious, with strongly-held and widely divergent viewpoints. But there 

is much we can agree on. I believe we would all agree that working can make a 

huge difference to people—meaningful work with meaningful pay has a positive impact on individuals, their families, their communities. We want to provide a safety 

net so that those who are in tough economic circumstances are able to put food on 

the table; at the same time, we also want to help people move towards self-sufficiency the right way—by helping them to secure and maintain jobs that pay well. 

These pilot projects offer us the chance to partner with states to develop and test 

strategies to help SNAP participants find jobs and increase their earnings. 

On August 25, 2014, I announced $200 million for up to ten, 3 year SNAP employment and training pilot projects, along with a rigorous independent evaluation of 

those projects. We at USDA see the pilots, which were authorized and funded under 

the new farm bill, as an important step in building on our current work helping to 

move people towards self-sufficiency through gainful employment. Towards that 

end, we are looking for a robust set of proposals from states that test a wide range 

of strategies, including targeting individuals with low-skills and major barriers, participants who are currently working in low-wage or part time jobs, and able-bodied 

adults without dependents (ABAWDs). As a whole, we intend to test pilots in both 

urban and rural settings, test a variety of approaches such as education, rehabilitative services, and rapid attachment to work, as well as both mandatory and voluntary participation in E&T activities. We want to test approaches that have shown 

promise with other populations, such as work-based learning strategies like pre-apprenticeship programs that lead to Registered Apprenticeship programs, and career 

pathway systems that include accelerated learning. We are also interested in testing 

programs that integrate basic education with on-the-job training. Importantly, we 

expect to see collaboration within state governments—human services agencies, 

workforce development agencies, and economic development agencies, working together as part of this effort. These partnerships will be critical to connecting participants and training programs with in-demand jobs and careers. To help connect 

SNAP participants with and prepare them for available employment opportunities, 

8 

we also incorporated elements of the job-driven checklist-laid out in Vice President 

Biden’s ‘‘Ready to Work’’ job-driven training report—into the selection criteria. 

A critical component of these pilots will be to rigorously evaluate the effectiveness 

of various practices, which will inform program implementation across the country. 

We hope to find and evaluate strategies that work in rural communities, as well 

as in urban settings. We need to know which populations may respond to lightertouch interventions, compared to those who may require more extensive services to 

be successful. In short—we need to know what works, how it works, who it works 

for, where it works—we need to know the results of these projects so that we can 

use this knowledge to better support work through SNAP Employment & Training 

programs across the country. 

This is an exciting opportunity, but these pilots are just one tool. I would like to 

take a moment to talk about the existing, core SNAP Employment and Training 

Program and my commitment to helping states improve and enhance SNAP E&T 

programs in order to respond to the needs of SNAP participants, in part by considering the needs of employers. SNAP participants are an extremely diverse group, 

and so, a diversity of approaches is needed. Most SNAP participants who can work 

already do work, but may need additional skills or experience to help them get or 

keep good jobs. Others were recently employed, but have lost their jobs—they may 

need help to get back on their feet. Still others have been out of the workforce for 

a number of years—these people tend to face the most significant barriers to employment, including low educational attainment, homelessness, substance abuse 

issues, and mental health concerns. Some are veterans, looking for employment now 

that they have returned home from serving their country. 

As you may know, with the exception of exempt populations including children, 

the elderly, individuals with disabilities, and individuals caring for young children, 

all SNAP recipients are subject to work requirements such as registering for work, 

taking a job if offered, not quitting a job without good cause, and participating in 

an E&T program component if mandated by the state. While USDA provides $90 

million in 100 percent Federal funds to states annually, and also reimburses states 

50 percent for additional spending on E&T activities, some states do not spend their 

full allocation, and five states draw down the bulk of the 50/50 funding. I have made 

the use of these funds a priority, and have urged state agencies to join me in identifying ways to leverage resources in order to more effectively connect SNAP participants with employment opportunities. 

USDA has also engaged actively with Federal partners such as the Department 

of Labor, Department of Education, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Department of Commerce, Department of Health and Human Services, and 

others to learn from them and identify opportunities to work across programs and 

agencies towards our mutual goal of helping Americans find jobs and increase their 

earnings. And, we have recently elevated our commitment to this important component of SNAP by establishing an Office of Employment and Training, building our 

expertise in the area of workforce strategies, and working with partners to better 

integrate and align programs and services provided by state and local workforce investment boards. 

Finally, we are clear that in this area, there is no room for failure. As we are 

all aware, able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs) are subject to time limits on participation—3 months of eligibility for SNAP benefits in a 36 month time 

period—if they are not working or participating in an E&T program at least 20 

hours a week. These individuals can be a challenging population to serve. Providing 

effective services to this population is most critical. 

I am passionate about the opportunity to improve people’s lives by connecting 

SNAP participants with the resources and opportunities they need to build better 

futures for their families. 

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today, and I look forward to any 

questions you may have. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Secretary Vilsack. The chair would 

like to remind the Members that they will be recognized for questioning in the order of seniority for Members who were present at 

the start of the hearing. After that, the Members will be recognized 

in the order of their arrival, and I, as always, appreciate the Members’ understanding. 

With that, Mr. Secretary, I would like to start by once again noting that I appreciate the efforts of the Department in implementing 

it on your behalf, too. As you mentioned in your testimony, these 

9 

pilots required extensive engagement with Federal partners to adequately prepare for the pilots, and I would like to focus on the pilot 

selection process and how you intend to fulfill the statutory requirements for providing a range of pilot projects. 

The statute says that the pilot projects, when considered as a 

group, test a range of strategies including strategies that target individuals with low skills or limited work experience; individuals 

subject to the requirements under Section 6(o) [of the Food and Nutrition Act], and individuals who are working; are located in a 

range of geographic areas and states including rural and urban 

areas; emphasize education and training; rehabilitative services for 

individuals with barriers to employment; rapid attachment to employment; mixed strategies and test programs that assign work recipients to mandatory and voluntary participation in employment 

and training activities. 

Does the scoring methodology you have proposed in your RFA 

support the idea that a true range of projects will be approved? 

Secretary VILSACK. Mr. Chairman, absolutely. We are looking for 

a broad range of ways and strategies to address this issue. Job 

search, job search training, workfare, work experience, basic skills, 

vocational education, self-employment training, job retention, looking at data collection, evaluation, collaboration with partners. We 

are anxious to use this program to indeed identify best practices 

because there are just a handful of states that are doing this well 

today. We need all 50 states to do it well, and we need to recognize 

that there are different challenges for different groups of people. 

So clearly, the scoring system, the evaluation, will be designed 

to provide as much diversity as we possibly can because we need 

as many good ideas as we can get. 

The CHAIRMAN. I always loathe to ask what-if questions, Secretary, but what if the applications are concentrated among a certain type or particular type? Will there be the capacity to go back 

and reflect on that? 

Secretary VILSACK. I think that is why we have the pre-application process to sort of make sure that folks are taking this seriously. It is also why we have a strong evaluation component to 

this, Mr. Chairman. We are going to be looking at this periodically 

throughout the course of the 2 to 3 year period that these test pilots will be working to make sure that people are doing what they 

said they were going to do and making sure that they are actually 

fulfilling the plan that they outlined. 

So the expectation is there is going to be great interest in this 

from the discussions I have had with governors. The expectation is 

that folks will create a wide, diverse set of practices and programs, 

and then there will be a strong evaluation and oversight effort, and 

if you are not doing what you need to do, we will pull the plug on 

the pilot or we will encourage folks to step up their game. 

The reality is that today we simply aren’t doing the job we need 

to do, and states are few—a handful of states are doing this very 

well, as I said earlier, but there needs to be an aggressive effort 

in all 50 states. And if there is, you will see numbers come down 

in SNAP. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the Secretary. You have just answered 

my final question. What will we do if there is not a proper mix, and 

10 

you have indicated very clearly that is the case. I have great faith 

in the amazing laboratories that are the States of this Union, and 

of the ten that will be ultimately selected, I just have great expectations for what they will accomplish. But that was the spirit, to 

think outside the box, to help people and help them for real. 

With that, I yield back the balance of my time and turn to the 

gentleman from Minnesota for 5 minutes for his questions. 

Mr. PETERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In your written testimony you refer to rehabilitative services and rapid attachment to 

work. Could you explain what they mean? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, there are a number of different strategies because there is not a single classification or way that you can 

describe a SNAP recipient. There are so many different segments 

of SNAP. There are people who have not had a job for an extended 

period of time, and so it may be necessary for us to work with them 

to provide the basic skills that will allow them to be successful 

from day one. 

There may be people who have been recently unemployed, but 

because of where they are or the circumstances in their life, it has 

been difficult for them to find work. But they are work-ready. We 

are in a position to work with them to maybe improve their job 

search skills, to be able to hone down to find where the best mix 

might be and the best fit might be. That is a process that we hope 

to be able to encourage through these pilots. 

So it really is on an individual-by-individual basis, which is why 

it is important for this program to be as diverse and as creative 

as possible. There are folks with some disabilities that are still— 

have great potential. We want to help those folks as well. Whoever 

is in a position to work, we want to be able to try to link them up 

with the work that is out there, and we want them to be successful, 

Congressman. It doesn’t do much good if we get somebody a job 

and 2 weeks into the job it just doesn’t work for them or they are 

just not ready for it, they don’t have the skills. We want to make 

sure this is a success for the individual and for the program. 

So we are going to try to cast the net pretty wide here and really 

encourage folks to be creative. I have three governor calls today in 

three states that we think ought to be engaged in this, and we will 

be making governor calls throughout the next couple of weeks because I want governors to understand, this is a real opportunity. 

Mr. PETERSON. Why do some states offer voluntary E&T and others mandatory? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, the sad reality here is until Congress 

put the spotlight on this effort, states really have not done, except 

for a handful of states, have not done as good a job as they need 

to do. In fact, we have, as you know, 100 percent federally funded 

programs. But $17 million of that Federal resource is not being 

spent. We need to put more focus on states that are getting the 100 

percent grant to actually use it. 

Of the states that—and every state understands I think that 

there is a 50 percent match, but only a handful of states even use 

that program. But yet, we have spent several hundred million dollars a year on this program. We are just not getting as much as 

we should for the money that we are spending. 

11 

So it may depend on making sure the governors are fully aware 

of the existence of these programs. It may be that we do a better 

job of aggressively promoting this program and requiring states to 

step up. Frankly, we haven’t done as good a job on that as we 

should, but this effort allows me now to really put a focus on this, 

and I can tell you that our team understands and appreciates this 

is a personal focus of mine. This is why I am here today to testify 

and to reinforce the fact that this is at the Secretary level. This is 

something that I am very, very interested in. I have actually looked 

at the application, the pre-application process. I have been working 

with staff in making sure that we cast a wide net on this. 

Mr. PETERSON. So, the 100 percent funding, that comes with a 

certain set of rules and so forth and you have to follow that—— 

Secretary VILSACK. Right. 

Mr. PETERSON.—and if you go to 50/50, then you would have 

more flexibility? 

Secretary VILSACK. A little bit more flexibility, part of what we 

are going to do with these pilots, obviously, is whatever the rules 

are, they have to be followed. But there is a bit more flexibility 

with this pilot than there is with the normal program which is 

what we will try to sell or market to our friends in state government. 

Mr. PETERSON. And there is a handful of states that use the 50/ 

50 significantly but a lot of states don’t use it at all. 

Secretary VILSACK. The largest users are New York, California, 

New Jersey, Illinois, and Washington. And Kevin Concannon, the 

Under Secretary, has actually traveled around the country to various facilities. I have been to facilities as well to see the kind of 

work that they are doing. Now, some facilities do a great job, and 

others just frankly don’t. I think that is the great thing about this 

pilot. It really gives us an opportunity to sort of redesign this program so it is more effective than it has been. 

Mr. PETERSON. All right. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, and I yield 

back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, 

welcome, and I will second or third the remarks of the Ranking 

Member and the Secretary regarding your leadership, Mr. Chairman. I had the honor being the Ranking Member with Mr. Peterson as Chairman during the last farm bill, and I know how contentious these are. But in the end, we reached agreement and not only 

passed the farm bill but passed a farm bill that withstood a Presidential veto. And so this one was also contentious and took a long 

time to come together. But I do think it moved in the right direction toward more free markets, and I was pleased to vote for it. Mr. 

Secretary, I appreciate your work in that regard as well. 

With regard to these pilot programs, this is an issue that this 

Committee has been dealing with for a couple of decades at least. 

In addition to block-granting the TANF Program, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, to the states, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996 added work requirements 

for adults without dependents. States may apply to the Department to waive this requirement. I believe you stated in your testiVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:10 Dec 19, 2014 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 I:\DOCS\113-22\89880.TXT BRIAN
12 

mony that there are now more than five million people who are 

able-bodied adults without dependents who are receiving food 

stamps. You also stated that about 31 percent of the people on food 

stamps have some form of employment. Can you bring those two 

together? Do you know how many of the five million able-bodied 

have some work as opposed to are not working? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, Congressman, the requirements are 

that if you are able-bodied without dependents, then you are required to commit yourself to either working or receiving some sort 

of formal education or training to get work. And if you do not, then 

your benefits are limited to 3 months of benefits every 36 months. 

Now, states have some flexibility with reference to that. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. I have several questions. 

Secretary VILSACK. Okay. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Do you know how many of the five million 

are—— 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, 31 percent of all households have earnings. And so—— 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Let me just move on to my point here. Has it 

been the practice of the U.S. Department of Agriculture to encourage states to apply for a waiver of the work requirement and if so, 

why? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, I don’t think it has been the practice of 

us to encourage states. I think we basically make sure they are 

aware of that situation, and depending upon the economic circumstances in their state, they may decide to utilize the waiver because unemployment is high in the state or unemployment is high 

in a particular area of the state. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Okay, the language that was accepted in the 

farm bill, and I am paraphrasing, stated that one of the strategies 

of pilot programs is to emphasize education and training and rehabilitative services for individuals with barriers to employment for 

‘‘rapid attachment to employment.’’ The goal of this Congress was 

to increase actual employment. Can you assure us that the USDA 

will pick projects with that goal intended to increase actual employment? 

Secretary VILSACK. Yes. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. And will workfare requirements which you mentioned again in your remarks as one of the options be treated with 

favor by the Department? 

Secretary VILSACK. That is the reason why we put it in the application. We are encouraging applications to promote that. Obviously, 

it depends on what the states submit, Congressman. But there are 

no preconceived notions about what is in or out. We want to make 

sure we get the best possible ideas and the best practices can be 

identified. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. If states wish to collaborate with one another 

and propose one single application containing multiple sites and 

interventions across certain states and sub-state areas, would the 

USDA consider multi-state applications? 

Secretary VILSACK. I don’t know of a reason why we wouldn’t. We 

are always looking for creative and new ways to do things, and we 

have encouraged that kind of original approach in a lot of other 

farm bill programs, including our conservation programs. 

13 

Mr. GOODLATTE. And recently this Committee heard testimony 

from Ms. Squier who is the New Mexico Secretary of Human Services. She testified that the amount of Federal income taxes needed 

to pay food stamps for 1 year is $1,300 on average per income-paying household with each taxpaying household buying almost 5 

months of groceries for their families. This is unsustainable. 

In addition to these pilot projects, are there other initiatives that 

the USDA is taking or encouraging the states to take that move 

exempt, able-bodied individuals to work? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, we actually are taking a look at the 

regular program that has not been utilized as effectively and are 

doing a better job of encouraging and stressing the need for states 

to be more engaged in the regular program. The fact that there are 

so few states that take advantage of this is a problem, and this 

pilot and this effort has allowed us to highlight that. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back. The chair recognizes 

the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. David Scott, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and welcome, Mr. Secretary. I must admit I am a little concerned as to the timing and why we are having this hearing at this 

time on this very important subject. Today is Wednesday, September 17. The applications for the pilot program were just released August 25, 3 weeks ago. The question period regarding applications doesn’t open until Friday. So you can understand that I 

think there is a question here as to why and what the purpose of 

this hearing is and the timing of it. So I just wanted to clear the 

air on that. 

So in your opinion, Mr. Secretary, what if any information can 

you provide regarding the applications that have already been submitted by the states for the pilot program? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, Congressman, I am not sure that we 

have actually received applications. I can tell you that there is interest in this program because I have spoken personally to governors, and we are going to be conducting a webinar for those who 

have questions about precisely how to go about applying. 

As I indicated in my opening remarks, we have the pre-application efforts coming up next week and then the full applications are 

due in November. And then we will take a couple of months to really review them and evaluate them and make awards in February. 

Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. So at this point, no state has submitted application? 

Secretary VILSACK. I may be wrong about that, but I am not 

aware of any. 

Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Okay. Just for the record, could you 

qualify or define exactly what—because the apex of this whole pilot 

program is what is referred to as able-bodied adult without dependents, how do you define that? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, this is an individual who is capable of 

working and has no significant barrier as a result of age or physical condition that would make it impossible or difficult for them 

to work, that obviously doesn’t have dependents. The reality is that 

there are people who have been unemployed for an extended period 

14 

of time. There are people who have been recently unemployed, and 

both of those fall into that category. And there are folks who have 

been dealing with a variety of issues that can be overcome, and 

they can become employable. So we want to work with everyone. 

I think the bottom line is the vast majority of people would prefer to have a job and prefer to be on their own than necessarily 

taking assistance from the government, but it is a good thing we 

have it for folks who do need it. 

Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Absolutely, and I certainly agree 

with you. Most recipients certainly want to have a job. 

And the other reason I ask that is because the fastest-growing 

group of those who are going on food stamps are our veterans, and 

there are a large number of reasons for that, considerations of 

PTSD. One may look and act normal, but they are enduring certain 

injuries. So I am very concerned about making sure we have precision when it comes to the definition of what is an able-bodied adult 

without dependents. 

Now, let me ask you, Mr. Secretary, are there rules for work registration in here? Who must register for work? 

Secretary VILSACK. They are required to make themselves available unless there is a waiver in place or unless they are in an area 

that has been designated by the state as not being subject to these 

requirements. 

Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Okay. And where and how do they 

register and how is this information getting out to them? 

Secretary VILSACK. Where they register varies from state to 

state, Congressman. I suspect that some are required to register at 

Human Service offices, and some are required to register in Workforce Development offices. But we can provide you a list of those 

and a more specific and definitive answer on that for your state or 

for any state that you are interested in. 

Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Right. That would be very important. And you are aware that, of course, the key to this is the partnership with the states, and a variety of states each have different, 

shall we say, attitudes about the program. The United States Department of Agriculture is the oversight agency on this. Is this correct? 

Secretary VILSACK. We have the responsibility, yes. 

Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. And will there be a standard that 

all of these states must hold? Because some are voluntary, some 

are mandated, and as you know, there are certain states who have 

a more draconian approach to this issue than others. What are the 

safeguards that are in place with the Agriculture Department to 

ensure fairness and to ensure that this program is not abused or 

misused, or used in a way that is unfairly negative to persons who 

unfortunately have to have food stamps? 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired, but the Secretary most assuredly can answer the question. 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, I would say in the rules and the structure of the applications, Congressman, there are additional protections to ensure that these programs are not abused and misused. 

Bottom line, we want to work with states in a collaborative effort. 

We want to work with local governments in a collaborative effort. 

15 

We think there is an opportunity here to find best practices and 

to encourage better practices on the part of states. 

You are absolutely correct when you say that there is a disparity 

of how this is viewed from state to state. That is obviously a concern, and it is frankly something that we need to do a better job 

of at USDA to ensure that states take this program seriously because it reflects on the entire SNAP effort, and we want to make 

sure that whatever reflects on it is a more positive reflection. 

Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

The CHAIRMAN. And I would take a moment to note to my colleague the issue concerning timing. It is my understanding that we 

potentially, when we go home this week, will have most likely have 

2 weeks of session in November, 2 weeks in December, and it was 

the Chairman’s view that considering the amount of debate and 

amendment and discussion in Committee and on the Floor, that 

these were important issues, just as you very effectively used your 

time asking those very relevant questions. 

Now the chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. King, for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would first like to welcome my fellow Iowan before the Committee here and thank you 

for your service to our country and the issues that are before us, 

Mr. Secretary. 

I would like to start with kind of a big-picture analysis and slice 

this thing down to roughly start with this 316 million Americans 

and slice it down to the five million that are the subject before us 

here, and I would start with this. The number that I happen to 

have in my head that probably needs to be adjusted from 4 or 5 

months ago that out of 316 million Americans according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are about 104.1 million who are of 

working age that are simply not in the workforce. We have unemployed numbers roughly in the 12 million area that is included 

within that. The balance of that is 92 million that are categorized 

as not working, perhaps given up. Also some are retired, some are 

homemakers, some are in school, but that would be those 16 million and up. 

We have a huge workforce out there that we are not tapping, and 

somewhere around 142 million is the score of the number of our 

workforce that we have. 

I didn’t hear in your testimony the number of those who are currently receiving SNAP benefits. 

Secretary VILSACK. It is 46.2 million I believe. 

Mr. KING. Okay, and it has gone down then a little over—not 

quite a million in the last year, year and a half, something like 

that? 

Secretary VILSACK. Over the last 15 months it is a little bit more 

than a million less than it was 15 months ago. 

Mr. KING. So I am encouraged by that trend. It has gone dramatically the other way in the previous several years. So I am encouraged by that. And in looking at the pilot programs that are 

there, first, I draw a blank. What is our unemployment—excuse 

me. What is the minimum wage in the United States today? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, I know what it should be, Congressman. 

16 

Mr. KING. I thought you might offer that. But I am curious about 

what it is. 

Secretary VILSACK. Is it $7.25. 

Mr. KING. I will settle on that. I wasn’t sure. We think that is 

right, but nobody is working for that that we know of, $7.25 in that 

area. Is that a factor in these pilot programs if there are jobs that 

are offered at minimum wage? Is that a factor or is your Administration going to look at what you think the minimum wage should 

be rather than what the minimum wage is? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, it is clear, Congressman, that if we 

raise the minimum wage to $10.10, we would have 3.6 million 

fewer people receiving SNAP. Now that is clear. But the purpose 

of this pilot is to advance the opportunities and to figure out precisely what the barriers are, what skill sets are required, what the 

job training efforts must be. 

Mr. KING. But my question really is focused on is work at minimum wage or above, is that a goal or is the proposed minimum 

wage by the Administration going to be a benchmark that might 

restrain some further employment that you recruited by the pilot 

program? 

Secretary VILSACK. It is a goal only in the sense that if there are 

people who have work, they could get better work and higher 

wages and therefore not need the program, we obviously want to 

encourage that as well. 

Mr. KING. And so if a state has a pilot program that increases 

and brings people to work at minimum wage or someplace under 

the $10.10 an hour, that wouldn’t be—your policies would not be 

prejudiced against those jobs—— 

Secretary VILSACK. No, because what—— 

Mr. KING.—are preferable regardless if they are minimum wage 

or above. 

Secretary VILSACK. What we are trying to do is to put folks to 

work, and we are trying to match it with the demand that exists 

for workers. So it is not a situation where we want to train somebody for a job that doesn’t exist or that isn’t available. We want 

to make sure that folks are prepared for the jobs that are in the 

economy and are available. 

Mr. KING. I like that, and it brings me to another curiosity that 

I have is that we are focusing these pilot programs within the 

states to be run by the states, and we are aware that there are 

states like North Dakota that are begging for employees to come 

up into that country and work in the oil fields and in all the businesses that have been spun off of the oil fields. Their unemployment rates are terrifically low. Iowa’s have come up to where they 

are a little better than—well, significantly better than the rest of 

the nation. 

What we have seen historically or when the Okies went to California, I might add, they went to the jobs. Is there anything in 

these pilot programs that would allow for a transition from state 

to state and encourage the relocation of employees? Because that 

seems to be a consistent barrier of people whose roots are down, 

and we seem to try to want to bring jobs to where people live rather than people to where the jobs are. 

17 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, I would say that a state or states could 

put together a proposal similar to that that would be considered. 

There is nothing prohibiting that or preventing that. 

The bottom line here, Congressman, is we want folks to be as 

creative and innovative as possible because at the end of the day, 

we need to do a better job of this than we have been doing, and 

we need to identify programs and practices that work. 

Mr. KING. And I would encourage you to encourage that. I think 

that is one of the barriers we have to employment in this country 

is a resistance to relocation. If that could be part of this, that 

would cause me to have an even more optimistic view about these 

pilot projects. I thank you for your testimony, Mr. Secretary, and 

I yield, Mr. Chairman, Okie, the balance of my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. And I thank the gentleman from Iowa, and yes, 

yielding me those 9 seconds back, the way my Okie ancestors probably felt sometimes. 

That said, we now turn to a gentleman who understands this 

very well, the gentleman from California, Mr. Costa, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. COSTA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I, too, want to 

add my congratulations and thanks for your hard work on the farm 

bill and many other efforts that all of us on the Agriculture Committee have engaged in with you in making some successes happen 

for agriculture across America. Mr. Secretary, I want to commend 

you as well for your good efforts. 

Quick question and then I want to talk about the focus of the 

food stamp programs. Mr. Secretary, a number of my constituents 

are concerned about the review process and the awards grants provided through the Specialty Crop Research Initiative which is the 

panoply of many diverse crops we grow in California and around 

the country. Would you and your staff follow up with mine to discuss the review process for awards, specifically on the vineyard 

management proposals? 

Secretary VILSACK. Sure. 

Mr. COSTA. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman and Members, 

it has been mentioned by the Secretary in his testimony, the major 

goal of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which we 

refer to as SNAP, is to help people move forward and to become 

self-sufficient by helping them secure and maintain jobs. Obviously, 

that is the goal we all embrace. And I want to specifically note a 

program in my district which I have previously briefed the Food 

and Nutrition Services’ Under Secretary Concannon who is doing 

a good job, called the Fresno Bridge Academy. My friend, Pete 

Weber, and his partners have used imagination and creativity to 

really think out of the box, and that is where these pilot programs 

come into play. It is a unique program that is producing excellent 

results. Let me give you an example. 

In the most recent graduating class, 77 percent of the participating SNAP clients came in unemployed. The remaining were underemployed. Eighteen months later, 83 percent of the clients had 

obtained employment or job advancement, and 32 percent had 

achieved complete self-sufficiency and reliance. Those are good 

numbers in the right direction, I believe. 

These pilot programs launched by the USDA will help tremendously the percentage of people enrolled in programs throughout 

18 

the country like this Bridge Academy in Fresno. But I am sure that 

many of my colleagues are wondering, well, what is the cost in 

achieving these results? The Bridge Academy, as an example, developed along with Fresno County Department of Social Services, 

has a cost-benefit model that helps monetize and evaluate the results of this program. They found that for every Federal tax dollar 

used, there was a $5.50 return to the taxpayer in the form of reduced outlays for food stamps, plus income taxes paid by people 

who were tax users rather than taxpayers. 

So my question, Mr. Secretary, is has the Food and Nutrition 

Services developed a cost-benefit minded application model across 

the country for these pilot projects? 

Secretary VILSACK. I don’t know that we have specifically crafted 

that type of return on investment, but it certainly could be part of 

the overall evaluation process. 

Mr. COSTA. Good. Well, I would be interested in looking to see 

if we could work together in a collaborative fashion to maybe use 

this model as a way to try to do what many of us here believe we 

ought to be doing. 

Secretary VILSACK. I am hopeful in the evaluation process that 

we actually have diversity, a bit of diversity, in the evaluators as 

well so that we have a cross-section of good ideas in terms of how 

best to evaluate these programs. 

Mr. COSTA. You are talking about calling the governors. How do 

we get this imagination and creativity that has been expressed in 

my area in Fresno expanded around the country? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, I think that is what this whole point is, 

this whole effort is about. It is about identifying best practices and 

making sure that governors are personally engaged in and aware 

of this opportunity. That is why I am calling my former colleagues 

to say, ‘‘Hey, this program is out there and you ought to be focused 

on this.’’ 

Mr. COSTA. I want to segue to another question area. As part of 

the 2014 Farm Bill, which you are doing a good job in implementing, we have the conservation compliance requirements that 

were transferred from direct payments on any farming operation 

that may be receiving a crop insurance subsidy. As you know from 

your many visits to our great State of California and our diverse 

agriculture that involves a lot of the fruits and nuts and wonderful 

specialty crops—I passed some of them out to Members of the Committee a moment ago—that we are starting to hear concerns from 

growers throughout California over the new farm bill requirements 

linking the crop insurance participation to conservation requirements. 

Mr. Secretary, how do we work through this in the Department 

to ensure that we figure this out? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, we first want to make sure that every 

producer knows that they have a responsibility by June of 2015 to 

file the AD–1026 Form. Some of the producers that you have mentioned may not have been used to filing such a form, but they are 

absolutely required to do so under the farm bill. And the reason for 

it is that we are continuing to expand crop insurance availability 

to specialty crop producers, and if they fail to do this by June of 

2015, they won’t be able to get the assistance from the government 

19 

in terms of the subsidies on the premiums, and they won’t be able 

to get the coverage that they would like to be able to get. 

So first and foremost, it is about making sure that folks comply 

with that mandatory requirement under the farm bill and making 

sure people are aware of it. 

Mr. COSTA. Thank you very much. My time has expired. Thank 

you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Secretary VILSACK. Mr. Chairman, can I just mention that the 

only goodies that I received were the Oklahoma peanuts which I 

appreciate. I didn’t get any of those specialty crops—— 

The CHAIRMAN. You are a lucky man, Mr. Secretary. You are a 

lucky man. 

I now recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Neugebauer, for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

holding this important hearing. And Secretary Vilsack, thank you 

again for coming today. 

You know, in reading through your testimony, you talked about 

that the USDA’s request—you mentioned types of proposals that 

you are interested in from states and different types of approaches, 

and one of the things that you mentioned in there that has shown 

promise with other populations. Certainly, we need to be searching 

out for existing models that other states may want to implement 

or try. But one of the things that I would hope that you built into 

the process, and I would be interested in hearing your reflection on 

that and how you might implement that, is we also want to make 

sure that we create an opportunity for some new ideas and new innovation of ways to do that because obviously, we have a lot of people on food stamps. And some of the methods that we have been 

using to get people out of poverty have not been working. I think 

food stamps are just an indication. It is a good indicator for that, 

and unfortunately, it is an indicator that says there is a problem 

out there when we have one in five Americans currently on food 

stamps in this country. 

So in the process, how have you built in to make sure that you 

not only look for things that are working now but encourage people 

to come up with new innovation? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, I have a couple of things. First of all, 

we are encouraging more collaboration and more partnerships. We 

think that there is a need for more partners to be engaged in this 

who have creative ideas and new ideas. We also are indicating a 

desire to work with different groups of individuals. There may be 

individuals who have barriers. We want case management opportunities to be presented for those types of individuals. There may be 

circumstances where we want our partners to identify jobs that are 

in demand and how we get the people that are on SNAP into those 

jobs that are in demand, what skills are required, what education 

is required, what training is required. 

I think we have set this up with enough flexibility and encouragement for people to be creative, and also as I talk to governors 

explaining to them that what we have been doing is not working 

as effectively as it should. In some cases it is because people aren’t 

20 

taking advantage of the programs. In some cases, people aren’t 

paying attention to the programs. 

I think the combination of outreach, the webinars, and the way 

in which we have structured this pilot we hope and believe will result in a diversity of ideas, new ideas, creative ideas, and innovative ideas. That is the goal. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Well, I appreciate that, and not only you have 

ten slots there, and I would hope that you reserve a slot or two for 

some really out-of-the-box kind of thinking so that we make sure. 

I guess one of the other questions is that you have mentioned— 

and I appreciate this—that you are taking this at the Secretary 

level and you have been reaching out personally to some of the governors. What is your initial response? Is there interest in this from 

the governors that you have spoken to? 

Secretary VILSACK. There is, but the initial response candidly is, 

‘‘Well, I didn’t know there was such a program. I need to check.’’ 

Or we will say, ‘‘Did you know that you haven’t spent all the resource that you have available?’’ That always gets a governor’s attention from prior experience. 

I think that these calls are effective, and it certainly underscores 

their need to be involved. At the end of the day, this will not work 

unless it is perceived in the states that this is a priority at the 

highest level. This can’t just be the Director of Human Services’ 

concern or the Director of Workforce Development. They really 

have to hear from the governor that, ‘‘You know what, we need to 

do a better job of this.’’ And if they do, then I am very, very confident we are going to do a better job. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Thank you. Mr. Secretary, one last thing. I 

wouldn’t be doing my job if I didn’t mention to you how important 

that those APH adjustments are to people in my part of the world. 

It has been several years of drought here, and that was called for 

in the farm bill to be implemented by the spring of 2015, and that 

is an indication that you are not going to be able to meet that. I 

think several of us have reached out to you and seeing if there are 

ways to implement portions of that in those areas that have had 

problems in the past that—but anyway, I certainly would encourage you to continue to work in that direction. 

Secretary VILSACK. Congressman, we obviously have received not 

only your directive but also the Chairman’s directive and others, 

and we recognize this. This is a challenge for us, as you know. We 

have looked at the idea of trying to parcel out certain sections of 

the country. The problem in addition to the staffing issues that we 

have addressed is that it could potentially create a significant problem in terms of inequality, inequity, and premium increases that 

are not necessarily warranted. So it is a complicated issue. We will 

do our best. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back. Thank you for noting 

my interest, too, Mr. Secretary. 

The chair now turns to the gentlelady from Ohio for 5 minutes. 

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. 

Chairman, I too would like to say that certainly I appreciate your 

leadership but more importantly your friendship. It has been a 

privilege and a pleasure to serve with you, especially during the 

21 

time of the farm bill, so I thank you. And we will miss your leadership. 

Mr. Secretary, thank you so much for being here. We all know 

that the SNAP program works. We know that fraud, which is certainly a concern of my colleagues in particular is at its lowest in 

the history of this country. We know that the numbers of people 

on SNAP are going down as we expected they would. So I am only 

going to ask you two questions, and I am going to give you the rest 

of the time to address anything you still need to address. 

The first one is that as I look at my own district, there are over 

33,000 families that receive SNAP, but over 67 percent of them 

over the last 12 months have had one or more workers in their 

household. So it is not that they don’t work. But the question is 

what impact do you believe the emphasis on work-based learning 

opportunities outlined in the August 25 Request for Applications 

will have on the success of the pilots that we have been discussing 

today? And second, in what ways can work pilots supplement the 

economic stimulus that SNAP already provides to this nation? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, Congresswoman, what we hope is to be 

able to identify strategies to get folks who are currently employed 

better working opportunities by looking at that demand-driven approach. What are the demands for jobs out there and how can we 

link people up and make sure they have the skills to be successful? 

It is not surprising that the percentages you have outlined are 

what they are in your district. The reality is that of those who are 

capable of working, 80 percent of SNAP beneficiaries have either 

worked just prior to needing SNAP or after they leave SNAP are 

employed. So I mean, people do want to work, and so the question 

is why aren’t they working? And in some cases it may be they are 

not aware of how to go about looking for those jobs. In some cases 

it may be that there is a transportation barrier, there is some other 

barrier, a basic skills barrier. Let us figure that out. 

In some cases, it may be that this person has a skill, and if we 

added just a bit more to that skill with an apprenticeship or preapprenticeship program, they would be able to do a job that is a 

significantly higher paying job than the job that they have. 

So the bottom line to all this is getting more people to work who 

want to work and getting people better-paying jobs who already 

have jobs. And if you do that, you are going to see a decline in the 

need for SNAP. And that is, in our view, the right way to go about 

doing it. 

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you. I have no more questions for you. If 

there is a question that was asked that you need to respond to or 

something else you would like to say to the Committee, please feel 

free. 

Secretary VILSACK. I feel compelled to note for the record that 

Mr. Costa did provide walnuts and pistachios to go. 

The CHAIRMAN. Californians are always trying to catch up. 

Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady yields back. I now turn to the 

gentleman from the State of Texas, Mr. Conaway, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that, resemblance of those remarks. I, too, want to brag on you for the 

great work you have done. I would use that tired phrase, you must 

22 

have big shoes to be filled, but that would apply in any case, 

whether you have done a good job or not. But you have done a 

great job and—— 

The CHAIRMAN. And hopefully I won’t leave anybody a case of political athlete’s foot, I promise. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Secretary, I thank you for being here. The 

laws require that you have this process started within 180 days 

that I would neglect if I didn’t mention that a bit late on that, getting that some 200 days from when this process started. 

Do you anticipate any other delays in the timelines that you 

have laid out at this point? 

Secretary VILSACK. I don’t, Representative. I would say that our 

team, if you take a look at the totality of the work that we have 

been doing on the farm bill, has done a good job of implementation. 

There may be a little slippage here or there, but we have done a 

lot of work in a short period of time. And what folks don’t realize 

is a lot of this work funnels into the General Counsel’s office and 

the Office of Budget and Program Analysis, and the same people 

are having to do the conservation stuff, the foundation stuff, the 

ARC–PLC stuff, et cetera. But we have a timeline, and we are 

going to—I guarantee you the awards are going to be made in February. 

Mr. CONAWAY. All right. Well, I was going to brag on you about 

the cost-benefit analysis sections of the proposals, but you weren’t 

real clear that those were in there. But they are in there, and I 

appreciate those being a part of the process of evaluating these proposals. Looking at the existing programs, you say we have $83 million we spend each year. That means there is $17 million of it that is 

unspent. Have you surveyed the states that don’t apply to find out 

why they are not applying for the money? Is it if you look at this 

Request for Applications, those 30+ odd pages, is it just too hard 

to get into the program for a lot of states? Is that what—— 

Secretary VILSACK. I don’t think that is what it is, Congressman. 

I think it is a lack of understanding and a lack of prioritization. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Okay. 

Secretary VILSACK. It is not a criticism. There is a lot going on 

in a state and a lot going on in an economy. This may not rise to 

the level of priority, but with this pilot, what you have done is you 

have created a spotlight that I think will enhance and encourage 

more folks—— 

Mr. CONAWAY. All right. So this would be on top of that existing 

100. We didn’t supplant that. The 100 percent match money is still 

there as well as this new money. 

Secretary VILSACK. We need to do a better job on both the 100 

percent and the 50 percent match, no question about that. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Yes. On the 100 percent, is there a matrix-created 

success? In other words, how many people find jobs? How many 

people come off of SNAP as directly related to the programs that 

are there? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, that is certainly the goal, and we will 

be happy to give you the—— 

Mr. CONAWAY. On the—— 

Secretary VILSACK.—details of that. 

23 

Mr. CONAWAY. Yes. On the five million that you mentioned, I assume you don’t have it off the top of your tongue. I don’t expect 

that. But do you have that categorized by state? 

Secretary VILSACK. I think it probably is. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Then we would be able to tell which of those 

states have exercised the waiver on the work requirement for ablebodied adults under—— 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, 43 states have exercised that waiver. So 

it is probably—— 

Mr. CONAWAY. I know, but I would be interested if you could to 

give us the data that shows is there a disproportionate number of 

that five million in states that have exercised the waiver versus the 

seven states that haven’t? That would be helpful if we could look 

at that. 

How do I answer this question: Again, all politics is local, and 

I am blessed to represent a district where two major cities have an 

unemployment rate of three percent. There are ‘‘now hiring’’ signs 

everywhere. I also grew up in a family where my dad thought it 

was a lot more important that he had a job than where we lived. 

So if the rigs were running in Morgan, Texas, we lived in Morgan, 

Texas. And if the rigs were running in Odessa, Texas, we lived 

there. And so getting to Mr. King’s comments, going to where there 

is a job seems to have a great deal of benefit. So how do I answer 

this question: I had a lady employer come to me, and she said she 

had additional hours in overtime for her team to work. She offered 

it to her team. They said yes, and then within a day or so they 

came back to her and said we can’t work those extra hours because 

it would have a negative effect on our benefits. How do I answer 

that employer as to why she can’t—why those folks would not be 

willing to work the extra hours because it caused them to cross 

some artificial threshold? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, Congressman, I would be a little bit 

concerned about answering that question because I don’t really 

know the personal circumstances of those workers. I don’t know in 

terms of benefits of what they are specifically talking about. I don’t 

know what their family situation is. I don’t know what their 

childcare cost—— 

Mr. CONAWAY. That is fair. That is fair, but if we put in these 

pilot programs, how are you going to address that issue that you 

get them off the benefits but they go into a job that makes $12 an 

hour? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, I think there are a significant number 

of folks who are looking for work and we can do a better job of finding them that opportunity, and I am very confident that they will 

take that opportunity. 

Mr. CONAWAY. My time is almost expired. I am pleased that this 

is a state best effort because it is not quite frankly the Federal 

Government’s responsibility to prosper for Midland, Texas. It is the 

folks in Midland, Texas’ responsibility to prosper and create the 

kind of environment that has those jobs where people can go to 

work. So I appreciate that this state-based effort hopefully will 

show some promise because I am not real keen on the Federal successes, and maybe we will have a different approach. 

So I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

24 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. The chair recognizes the gentlelady from Washington State, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. DELBENE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you as well 

for your leadership of this Committee. We really appreciate it. And 

thank you, Secretary Vilsack, for being with us today, and thank 

you and your team for all the work that you have done so far on 

implementing this program. 

Before I get started, I have to say that I think it is a little odd 

that we are having this hearing right now before we have a lot of 

information just a few weeks after the request for applications 

went out. When we have more information, then you have information on the types of applications you have received, et cetera. I 

think it will be an important conversation, so I hope we will have 

a chance to have that conversation as well. 

That said, these pilots are extremely important. Back in May of 

last year I introduced the Enhancing Employment and Training 

Through Education Act, a 3 year, $30 million competitive grant 

fund to encourage states to provide targeted employment and training programs. It was based on Washington State’s Basic Food, Education, and Training Program, what we call BFET, which has been 

a highly successful program in our state, and that bill was included 

in the farm bill from the start. And we fought very hard to increase 

funding for these pilots, and at the end of the conference committee, we have an expanded program, $200 million, and up to ten 

pilot programs. So I am very excited about this. 

Washington’s BFET Program has proven to be very successful at 

helping low-income individuals get jobs. We have 11,000 people 

who have gotten jobs to date. During the height of the recession, 

60 percent of Washington’s BFET participants found jobs, and a recent analysis of our program found that fewer than 1⁄2 of those enrolled remained on government assistance 2 years after starting 

the program. So that is the kind of success I think that we are hoping will stem from these pilots and greater learning on what can 

be shared amongst all of us across the country to have successful 

programs. 

Unlike most Federal job training programs that exist today, 

these pilots will provide targeted employment and training resources tailored to help low-income adults currently receiving 

SNAP benefits. Historically programs that serve SNAP participants 

have provided limited job search assistance and expansion of a 

Washington State style program will encourage states to administer programs with meaningful education and training opportunities, enable participants to obtain industry-recognized degrees and 

credentials that are definitely highly valued and help really determine long-term success. This is a smart way for us to invest now 

in education and training and career opportunities and save money 

as these workers transition off of SNAP. 

So thank you very much for your work on this. Can states submit 

more than one application for the potential pilots? 

Secretary VILSACK. I don’t think there is any restriction on the 

number of applications that a state can submit. They might want 

to think about the strategy behind that in terms of being able to 

distinguish the characteristics of each application. But I don’t think 

25 

there is a restriction, again, the more applications, the better. The 

more creative the ideas, the better. 

Ms. DELBENE. Okay. Thank you. And to what degree do you 

think current state E&T programs will intermingle with these pilots or do you have any expectation around how that might work? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, I know that Kevin Concannon traveled 

out to Washington because of the success of your program, and he 

traveled to a number of other states. So I am very certain that 

characteristics of successful programs have been identified in the 

application process as criteria that folks should consider. So it did 

give us an opportunity to begin the process of educating people 

about what works. Now we obviously have to do a much better job 

of that. 

You mentioned another issue which speaks to the notion of folks 

crossing borders and searching work. Oftentimes, states don’t necessarily recognize the credentials from one state to another which 

may be an impediment and it may be something that this process 

might allow us to address a bit. 

Ms. DELBENE. That was a great point. Thank you very much 

again for being here, and I yield back the remainder of my time, 

Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady yields back. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Scott, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Vilsack, as you know, with anything that we do, we have to 

balance access with integrity in any of our programs so the public 

will maintain support and not lose faith in them. And one of the 

issues as I am traveling my state that I continue to hear is the 

issue of drugs. And when I talk to employers, the number of people 

they have to let go because of failing a drug test, the number of 

people who come in and apply for a job who they cannot hire because they fail a drug test, is one of the primary concerns. And as 

I continue to talk to constituents, this is an issue that comes up 

over and over again. 

My question for you is states who, in the application process, 

would prohibit somebody who lost their job because they failed a 

drug test or who did not obtain a job because they had failed a 

drug test. How will your Administration look upon that and the potential for drug testing for food stamp beneficiaries? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, we certainly—at this point in time, we 

don’t require drug testing relative to the regular program. I would 

say that there is a recognition that there may be people who are 

in that able-bodied category that have substance abuse issues, and 

that may be the barrier that they have to being able to obtain or 

retain work. So the question would be whether or not states can 

come up with creative and thoughtful ways to deal with that barrier, to remove that barrier, so that person can be productive and 

no longer need food assistance. 

Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Let me be a little more clear about 

it. If in a state’s application they said that we were not going to 

allow somebody who lost their job because they failed a drug test 

to receive Federal SNAP benefits, would the Secretary allow that 

as part of the application process? 

26 

Secretary VILSACK. You know, I am not sure why a state would 

do that because the purpose of this is to get people to work. It isn’t 

necessarily to define how we ought to restrict this program for one 

reason or another. It is really designed to do two things: first, to 

get people jobs; and second, those who have jobs, to get them better-paying jobs. That would be a bit inconsistent with the purpose 

of the pilots to do that. And that may be a conversation that you 

and your colleagues have to have about the overall SNAP program. 

It is not something we would probably be supportive of, but I don’t 

think it fits into the reason why we have these pilots. The pilots 

are really designed to find people work and find people better-paying jobs. 

Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Well, the problem that comes then 

is for the man and the woman that is getting up there every day 

and going to work and maybe working at those starting wages, 

working on the assembly line. It is pretty frustrating for them to 

see somebody who maybe loses their job or doesn’t go to work because they fail a drug test, to see them getting benefits. 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, Congressman, I guess we all have personal experiences that sort of shape how we think about these 

things. I think back to my mother’s challenges with alcoholism and 

the pride that she took in ultimately overcoming her addiction and 

having employment. It would be a sad day if our country wasn’t 

willing to give her a second chance. 

Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Secretary, with due respect, 

we are not talking about second chance here. We are talking about 

people who are making a choice in many cases to buy drugs instead 

of food. And it is one of the reasons that many American citizens 

have lost faith in this system. And so again, I mean, I am talking 

about protecting the integrity of the system, and quite honestly, I 

don’t think that working people’s tax dollars and their wages 

should be going to pay for SNAP benefits for people who are failing 

drug tests. I just hope that if a state says that somebody who loses 

their job because they failed a drug test should not be eligible for 

food stamps, that the agency would respect that decision by the 

leadership of the states. 

With that said, Mr. Chairman, I will yield the remainder of my 

time. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back the balance of his 

time. The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from California, and 

would note in spite of my earlier comments, few states have the relationship that Oklahoma and California have had over the last 85, 

90 years. The gentlelady is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. NEGRETE MCLEOD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank 

you for your leadership. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for coming. I 

am not going to talk about a pilot program, but I am going to ask 

about the California Success Program, which partners with community colleges to execute training programs. It encountered some 

problems when USDA deemed that the program was supplanting 

rather than supplementing a program. Can you give California 

some state guidelines on how to modify a program so it does not 

run into statutory problems? 

27 

Secretary VILSACK. We would be happy to work with the state to 

try to find better alignment. You know, this is really about encouraging, not discouraging. 

Mrs. NEGRETE MCLEOD. Yes, and we have some community colleges that had a program set up, and then they were deemed not 

being able to run. 

I also have another question, but I will submit it to your staff 

so that they can answer me on that particular question. And again, 

thank you so much, and Mr. Chairman, I am going to cut it real 

short. I just want to thank you for allowing me to sit on this Committee and being a part of it. You know, this will be my one and 

only term here in Congress. 

The CHAIRMAN. You will be missed. The gentlelady will be 

missed. Thank you very much. The gentlelady yields back. The 

chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. LaMalfa, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It has been a real 

pleasure to work with you as Chairman on this Committee here. 

You are a person that seeks and finds solutions and brings people 

together and you are a great example we can all have around here. 

So I appreciate this time. 

It is interesting in the comradery of this Committee here I have 

heard at least three complaints about why we are having a hearing 

today, and I am reminded that it is the job of the people’s House 

to have oversight of the Federal agencies and departments that we 

appoint and deploy. And so any time we can have a hearing on how 

a program is being implemented or how it has come along to be implemented, it is a good thing to have that in front of the American 

people. And conversely, when you hear that maybe bills have 

moved to the Floor a little quickly and we didn’t have a hearing 

about it, I just am kind of mystified as to how those two things oppose each other. 

Anyway, so it is good we are doing this today and talking with 

the Secretary. I appreciate him attending here and updating us on 

how things are coming along. The SNAP program known as Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. I don’t think it is supposed to be the be-all and end-all for all types of assistance for people. That is why the word supplemental is in there. But it is proper 

for us to fine tune and course correct on programs the government 

has started and implemented over the years. So in doing so on 

these pilots coming up, it is a very good thing that we have—we 

are looking at some refinements to work requirements. 

If I may just offer them, Mr. Secretary, I would be remiss if I 

didn’t at least mention it as a Californian with our drought situation here that your folks are working with our growers out there 

as well on implementing relief on that. So if I would just ask you 

to continue to keep an eye on that, things seem to be coming along 

pretty well at this time and also take a look over your shoulder at 

how Forest Service is doing here because the fires are just devastating in Northern California as well, Siskiyou County. A number of you had visited Trinity County next door not too long ago. 

It is devastating out there, and we need a lot of help. Let us get 

the Forest Service on track with managing those lands. 

28 

So that said, back to the topic here. I am curious. You know, we 

have seen in the long history of welfare reform that the Work First 

projects have far exceeded educational projects in terms of how promoting work and increasing earnings, both in the short and long 

term, that they work pretty well that way. The Department of 

Labor has even moved away from education and training-only models. Can we receive a commitment that you would also consider 

that Work First types of projects have been proven to be successful 

when selecting these applicants? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, Congressman, the pilots will allow work 

to count as an E&T activity, and that is different than the core 

E&T Program. Obviously we want to make sure there is adequate 

level of protection so that it is not abused or that individuals can’t 

be unduly sanctioned for non-compliance, unless there is compelling evidence that they refused to comply. And in that case, obviously, that is a problem for them. 

But yes, this is going to count as an E&T activity in this pilot. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Okay. You know, I was kind of alluding to what 

Mr. Scott was saying a while ago. I think the American public that 

pays the bills expects to see that people that are able are seeking 

work and that work-oriented programs are at the forefront, just to 

keep the ball moving on unemployment and people understand the 

value of a job. So that is why I bring that up. 

So appreciate it. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back the balance of his 

time. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. 

Schrader, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SCHRADER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it very 

much. It has been my privilege to serve on the Agriculture Committee with you, and one of the few bright lights in my Congressional career is working on the farm bill with you and the rest of 

the Members of the Committee. You truly couldn’t tell a Republican Member from a Democratic Member, and I think that is due 

to your leadership and the Ranking Member. I appreciate it. 

I would like to switch gears a little bit here, Mr. Secretary, since 

we are talking in general also about some of the other elements of 

the farm bill that did pass, and one of those was to have the Department of Agriculture consult with the Department of Labor in 

their use of what we call hot goods in dealing with some of our 

farmers, in particular, those dealing with perishable goods. As you 

know, hot goods legislation grew out of a depression-era program 

to give the Department of Labor the ability to deal with willful violations of Wage and Hour Law or Child Labor Law and allowed the 

Department of Labor to confiscate usually textiles or hard goods so 

that individuals, businessmen and women that were not following 

the law would be encouraged to pay the penalties and actually reinstitute the wages for these people. 

It has been expanded particularly in recent years to include perishable products, and as you may know, in Oregon a couple years 

ago, the Department of Labor swooped on to a couple of blueberry 

farms in my district in the State of Oregon and threatened and extorted money from blueberry growers saying that they were going 

to quarantine and confiscate this crop of perishable product unless 

they admitted guilt, paid penalties, paid fines up front for which 

29 

they are supposed to have due process. As a matter of fact, the conversation that I had with the Department of Labor in 2012, they 

indicated they don’t do this until they have exhausted all other resources and the farmer has had an opportunity to make his or her 

case. 

That was not done, however, by the regional representatives of 

the Department of Labor in Oregon. And as a result of that, we 

have reached out to you in your office to talk a little bit with the 

Department of Labor as they move forward in their use of hot 

goods. There have been two court cases that have said that the Department of Labor willfully violated the rights of these farmers. As 

a matter of fact, while they didn’t judge the use of hot goods necessarily, the acts were so egregious, the two courts have said that 

the money should be returned to these farmers, and the Department of Labor to this day has not been able to find all these workers that supposedly were on these farms that did not get paid. 

So to that extent, I am very interested in your comments about 

any conversations you have had with Secretary Perez or folks in 

your office about how to work together on the implementation so 

farmers have due process and workers get their due rights at the 

end of the day. 

Secretary VILSACK. Congressman, personally I have not had a 

chance to visit with Secretary Perez specifically about that issue. 

We have actually been working collaboratively on this issue that 

we are here today to talk about which is the SNAP E&T Program, 

getting his thoughts and his team’s thoughts about how we can 

structure this in terms of getting people lined up with the demanddriven jobs and pre-apprenticeship opportunities. But given the fact 

that you have raised it, I will be more than happy to reach out to 

him. I suspect our staffs have probably talked about it. Part of the 

challenge is there are a lot of areas where I have to visit with sister agencies of the agricultural economy about what is going on. 

Most recently the child labor issue was an issue that we talked a 

little bit about with the Department of Labor. We are conversing 

with them on this. We are making sure that they understand what 

a perishable commodity is and will continue to consult with them. 

But I will be happy to talk to Secretary Perez about your concerns. 

Mr. SCHRADER. If you could, I would appreciate it. On the Horticulture Committee, Chairman Scott and I and the rest of the Committee, in a bipartisan fashion, are very concerned about 

misapplication of what was originally intended as a good tool in the 

toolbox and wanted to make sure that is not used in a way that 

denies Americans due process. So if you could get back to our Committee, I would certainly appreciate it. 

With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Davis, for 5 minutes. I assume we are about to start harvesting corn, correct, Mr. Davis? 

Mr. DAVIS. Actually, some fields are already there. 

The CHAIRMAN. I think a lot of people feel better already. 

Mr. DAVIS. Yes, well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for coming to the 

13th District last week, and just north of where we were, they are 

already harvesting. How about Iowa, Mr. Secretary? They got any 

out of the field yet? 

30 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, honestly I am hoping they wait until we 

have enough rail cars to be able to ship it to where it needs to go. 

Mr. DAVIS. Ironically I guess—— 

Secretary VILSACK. I don’t think we are quite—we are close but 

not quite there yet. In talking to farmers, some beans are ready, 

but the corn is not quite where it needs to be. 

Mr. DAVIS. Well, we have an opposite problem in central Illinois. 

The corn seems to be ready. The beans are a little behind. But I 

just left a T&I hearing ironically on rail reauthorization. This was 

passenger, though. 

Secretary VILSACK. Did you get it done? Oh, no—— 

Mr. DAVIS. Yes. That is why I got—I came back here. 

Secretary VILSACK. We may have to fill some of those cars with 

some corn on the way. 

Mr. DAVIS. Hey, I don’t want to reiterate some of the issues that 

are very important that I know we talked about today, and my 

issue that we talk about often when you are in front of this Committee has to do with the School Nutrition Program. And my invitation to you still stands to come to Illinois and visit with some of 

the districts that are having some concerns and some that have 

pulled out of the School Nutrition Program. And I also want to 

thank you because a representative of your agency is actually going 

to participate in our school lunch summit in Pana, Illinois, at the 

end of this month. So thank you, an invitation for you to come, too, 

if it fits would be on the table also. 

Secretary VILSACK. Congressman, as part of that since you have 

raised it, you should make sure that those school districts that are 

challenged are aware of a program that we are putting together 

with the University of Mississippi to provide intensive help and assistance for districts, strategies, and mentoring and pairing and basically partnering them up with other communities that have successfully implemented this. So we are excited about this opportunity to reach out to school districts that are challenged and to try 

to figure out ways to make it a little bit better for them. 

Mr. DAVIS. I would love to have some more information on the 

University of Mississippi—— 

Secretary VILSACK. We will get it to you. 

Mr. DAVIS.—the consulting that they were able to do. I would 

love to send our school districts who are having problems with 

them. And it seems to be growing in Illinois on this issue. We just 

saw the second-largest school district that we have in the State of 

Illinois pull out of the School Nutrition Program. It is in Wheeling, 

Illinois, just north of Chicago in the Chicago suburbs where they 

are giving back upwards of $900,000 a year because it is not profitable for them to be able to continue to participate. 

Those are the issues that I want you to see on the ground and 

want to continue to work with your Administration, work with the 

USDA to find that flexibility and that sweet spot that we know is 

out there because we all have the same goals. We all want to make 

sure that the kids eat healthier. We all want to make sure that the 

kids actually eat and not waste the food, and some small flexibility 

within the program could be the answer. And that is what I want 

to work with your agency on and work with you personally on, Mr. 

Secretary. And that is what I came here to talk about today, and 

31 

I appreciate your willingness to be here. I appreciate your willingness to send somebody to address the issues in our district, and I 

also appreciate your willingness to work with institutions like the 

University of Mississippi to try and help schools that are hurting. 

But I also want to urge and counsel you and the Administration 

that it seems this issue has become somewhat of a demagoguing 

issue, more of a political issue, and that is not why I am interested. 

I am interested because I am a parent of three teenagers in public 

school. I am interested because my school administrators are the 

ones that are bringing this up as a problem. And I appreciate your 

willingness to be a participant in the debate, too. 

And I don’t have any particular question for you. I am happy to 

have any response that you may have and thank you again. 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, Congressman, I certainly appreciate 

your heartfelt concern about this, and I know that there are some 

school districts, particularly in rural areas, that for a multitude of 

reasons are challenged, declining enrollments, declining state assistance. It does create a stress which is why we decided to put this 

opportunity with the University of Mississippi together. The theory 

behind this is that we will be identifying school districts in each 

region of the country that have challenges. We will have them 

come down for a day to 2 day intensive training at the University 

of Mississippi. They have a center for nutrition [the National Food 

Service Management Institute] down there. We will then identify 

school districts of a similar type and nature that have successfully, 

part of the 90+ percent of school districts that have embraced this, 

to help them create some peer-to-peer opportunity. And then we 

have additional grant resources, and as we learn about challenges 

we have been willing to grant flexibilities, the wheat pasta as an 

example, some of the breakfast challenges and requirements. And 

we are seeing more resources going into this program in total, 

about $200 million of additional revenue going to schools. 

So we are going to continue to work on it—— 

Mr. DAVIS. Great. 

Secretary VILSACK.—and we are going to continue to try to be 

helpful. 

Mr. DAVIS. Well, I appreciate that. I know many of my school districts are having challenges in the rural areas, but the second-largest district in Illinois is not in a rural area. It is in Wheeling, Illinois, very suburban Chicago, a wealthier district, too. So I look forward to having them work with the University of Mississippi, too. 

And also, since we are talking about food and nutrition benefits 

here, the reason I want to make sure that we see your continued 

work on flexibility is because the child that is hurt the most when 

the requirements are less flexible is the child that gets his or her 

only meal of the day at school. And I want to make sure that the 

school has that flexibility to provide that healthy meal that we all 

want that child to meet. 

So thank you. My time has expired, sir, and it is good to see you 

again. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. The chair now 

turns to the gentlelady from New Mexico for 5 minutes and hopes 

that we all get rained on this weekend at home. 

32 

Ms. LUJAN GRISHAM. It is one of those mixed blessings, Mr. 

Chairman. We want sufficient rain always to address our drought, 

but we don’t want a deluge that then creates watershed problems 

and continued flooding. So I will hope that like the bipartisan comments that have been made here today, having a lot to do with 

your leadership, I use this Committee as a shining example when 

I am back home for my constituents that we get just enough rain, 

not too little, not too much. 

And it actually is a great segue, Mr. Chairman, into my question. 

I do appreciate that we are working hard to figure out the best way 

to make sure that we are addressing hunger and access to the programs that make a difference but making sure that those programs 

have integrity and accountability. And so I am really interested in 

finding that balance, particularly in New Mexico. And while we are 

seeing the economy improve across the country, that is not true everywhere. And while the nation, Mr. Secretary, as a whole has seen 

complete job recovery in terms of the jobs lost as a result of the 

recession, that is not true in New Mexico. In fact, we have job 

losses just above four percent still, and in the heart of my district, 

Albuquerque, we are still in a double-dip recession. And I know 

that you are fully aware, and I appreciate that, and that the whole 

Department is clear that we are number one in the country for 

hungry children, and we are number two in the country for hungry 

adults, issues I am very concerned about and working diligently to 

address. 

New Mexico is interested in the pilot and is a state that has long 

sought after the waiver for work requirements given these conditions. We had our Human Services Secretary before one of our Subcommittees, and the Secretary has made it very clear in her statements, her leadership, and in this Administration, positions I don’t 

agree with and that is okay. But the State of New Mexico has 

made it very clear that these benefits, these entitlements or programs, to alleviate hunger, are nothing more than a transfer of resources from people who pay taxes to people who don’t. This bias, 

on the state level, creates real issues including that we have considerable backlog in applications requiring court orders. I use that 

in a plural, and those debates continue. 

So what I want to talk about is that poverty must be addressed 

in my state. I absolutely want people to have access to meaningful 

employment. We absolutely want able-bodied individuals and families to have access to success. But to penalize children and adults 

who are currently the hungriest in the country, is exactly what will 

happen if a state like New Mexico isn’t careful about finding a balance. 

Can you talk to me about how you are going to evaluate these 

states, what you are going to do to make them accountable, and be 

clear that the intended purposes for your pilots are met and that 

states with a philosophical difference to these pilots would not be 

allowed to manipulate them in order to stop, say, the distribution 

of SNAP and food stamp benefits? 

Secretary VILSACK. Congresswoman, I think it starts this afternoon at approximately 1:30 when I will speak to Governor Martinez about this very issue. I have a phone call scheduled with her 

33 

to talk about the pilot and to talk about how New Mexico potentially could be involved in this effort. 

I would say first and foremost, the application process is pretty 

clear that there is going to be a requirement that data be collected, 

that there be a serious evaluation of programs, that there will be 

some accountability if programs don’t meet the goals outlined in 

the application. We reserve the right to basically stop the pilot. 

This is not designed to be a punitive effort. This is designed to be 

an incentive-driven effort in the hopes that we identify the best 

practices that then can be utilized by us to do a better job on the 

regular program. As I have said several times today, we really 

have to do a better job, we, the collective we, have to do a better 

job on this employment and training effort in SNAP to really connect the people that are looking for work, want to work, would love 

to work, but are having a hard time finding a job, having the skills 

to get the jobs that are in demand. And for those who currently are 

working, maybe we get them a better-paying job so they don’t need 

as many benefits or any benefits at all. 

Ms. LUJAN GRISHAM. And to that end, Mr. Secretary, is it possible, in not doing sufficient research before this Committee hearing, to identify what your authority is? But it appears to me that 

before a state like New Mexico ought to even be invited to prepare 

a pilot, they ought to assure you that the current requirements are 

being met. And, this must include assurance that the backlog is addressed. For now, this has been done by local advocates and partners because there is no accountability support outside of the state. 

And it appears to me that accountability would be a very vital role 

for USDA. I would like your assurance, based on your independent 

review of the state, to make sure we are addressing hunger in New 

Mexico. 

Secretary VILSACK. I can assure you, Congresswoman, that we 

take very seriously the responsibilities of states to actually make 

this program available to people and not to create unnecessary or 

undue barriers to participation. 

When I became Secretary, there were a number of states that 

were under-performing in terms of eligibility. There were states 

that had less than 50 percent of eligible people actually participating in the program. Today our participation rate is 83 percent, 

and obviously, we are sensitive to the need to get people who are 

eligible and entitled to the program the assistance they need. At 

the same time, we are cognizant of the fact of the need to do a better job of creating opportunities for people who can work to work 

which reduces the reliance of the program which is—that is what 

we ought to be doing. 

Ms. LUJAN GRISHAM. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

Ms. LUJAN GRISHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The chair would note to the membership that the 

Secretary needs to depart at noon. That is 20 minutes. We have 

three more Members. If we maintain our present number, we will 

continue the 5 minute rule. If we have a whole number of Members, we may discuss shortening that to allow everyone a chance. 

With that, the chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. 

Yoho. 

34 

Mr. YOHO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I too would like to say 

how much I appreciate your leadership on this Committee, your bipartisan support and your stellar effort to get the farm bill passed 

and your statesmanship out there on the Floor. It was the highlight of my first year in Congress, and I appreciate your leadership. 

Mr. Vilsack, I appreciate you leading the USDA. 

One of the things that has come up several times is the integrity 

of the program for the SNAP program. Mr. Conaway brought it up, 

Mr. Scott, Ms. Lujan Grisham, and myself have personally seen 

people abusing the system or making poor choices. I was back in 

the district right before we came back, and this young fellow came 

in to a Jiffy Store. He was buying gas, a six-pack of beer, cigarettes, and he bought a sandwich with his food stamps, and then 

he pulls out cash to pay for the other things and lottery tickets. 

And that is the kind of thing that ruins the integrity of the program because the working person out there, as Mr. Scott says, we 

see hard-working people paying their taxes and those things going 

on. And it just kind of erodes the faith of the American people. And 

I know we are working on it. We can’t stop all that. But I felt like 

I should bring that up because I see that often. 

What I would like to bring up is you stated there are many different segments of SNAP. What is your goal, to reform, refine, 

streamline the SNAP Program, and what is that time period? I 

mean, if you could ultimately pick a program where it doesn’t have 

so many segments to it. Can you streamline it? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, Congressman, we are engaged and involved in trying to figure out ways to streamline processes at 

USDA. Each mission area has a requirement that I have imposed 

to have two process improvement programs in place in an effort to 

try to save time and save resources. It is part of our administrative 

services process. We have already identified over a billion dollars 

in savings. 

I can’t speak specifically to efforts relating to SNAP, but I would 

be more than happy to let you see what we are doing in the process 

improvement area to assure you that we are focused on this. 

But I also want to say that we take our responsibility on fraud 

and abuse very seriously. Over 700,000 individual interviews and 

investigations were conducted in Fiscal Year 2013. We took a look 

at thousands of stores who we felt as a result of the data mining 

that we do might not be playing by the rules. Nearly 2,000 were 

either disqualified from participation in the program or sanctioned 

as a result of that review on an annual basis. 

We have the lowest fraud and error rate in the history of the program. There is still work to be done. That is why we have proposed 

a series of measures to increase the number of inspectors and auditors and investigators at USDA. It is also a reason why we suggested a change of stores that qualify, the qualification standards, 

in terms of the kinds of foods that they sell. We know that a lot 

of problems occur not in the large scale chain grocery store—— 

Mr. YOHO. Right. 

Secretary VILSACK.—but in a lot of those convenience stores. So 

we are taking that accountability responsibility seriously, and we 

will continue to work on that. 

35 

Mr. YOHO. Okay. That is good to know, and I appreciate that. 

How does this pilot program differ from the TANF reforms that 

were made in 1996 and implemented in—was July 1 of 1997? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, this program is really designed to sort 

of be like a Match.com. There are people out there that are capable 

of working, that want to work, or that are currently working that 

would like to work better-paying jobs. They just are having a hard 

time figuring out how to do that. And then there is the responsibility that we have to try to provide help and assistance. 

And so what this is designed to do is to say to states and local 

nonprofits and so forth, be creative. Figure out ways in which we 

can create that connection. Figure out ways in which we can improve job searching skills. Improve basic skills so that people understand when they have to come to work at 8:00, it means they 

have to be there 5 minutes to 8:00, et cetera. 

So it is really designed to create that connection to reduce the 

number of people needing SNAP because they have a job or a better paying job. 

Mr. YOHO. Okay. And that is good to know also. Can other states 

opt into this pilot program over the ten-state allotment? If you are 

seeing this successful, can we roll other states into this? 

Secretary VILSACK. Well, if you give us the permission to do that 

we can. 

Mr. YOHO. Okay. 

Secretary VILSACK. Right now with the tough evaluation process, 

we really do want to identify best practices, and the hope is that 

by identifying these best practices we can then basically expand 

those in the basic program, the E&T program to eventually all 50 

states. That is the whole purpose of this is to figure out what 

works and then to say to other states, ‘‘This works. Try it.’’ 

Mr. YOHO. Okay. I have one other question, but I am out of time. 

I will get it to you and I appreciate your being here. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Courtney, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Chairman, like the others, I want to salute 

you. Over the last 4 years I have sat on this Committee and 

watched your extraordinary deft touch as Chairman, trying to navigate a very challenging piece of legislation, and I want you to know 

that even in New England, you have a fan club. Whenever I go to 

the Connecticut Farm Bureau, they speak of you very reverentially. 

So your reputation is wide and far. 

Mr. Secretary, I appreciate the comments you made earlier about 

the fact that the best way to reduce food stamp expenditures is to 

increase employment and earnings. That is the path that we know, 

and the good news is CBO (Congressional Budget Office) is already 

starting to signal that we have sort of hit the tipping point, and 

if this recovery can be nurtured and grown, that expenditure is 

going to fall for USDA. 

First of all, I want to note that increasing earnings would also 

reduce expenditures. CBO has indicated that if we would actually 

pass the minimum wage bill, there is an estimate in terms of the 

billions of savings for the taxpayer. And it is unfortunate that 

36 

there is a bill that has a discharge petition with close to 200 signatures in the House, yet it can’t get a vote. 

The other question I want to ask you is regarding the Workforce 

Opportunity and Investment Act, that the President signed in July. 

As you know, this is updating of the Job Training Program, which 

hasn’t been changed since Bill Clinton was President. I know Secretary Perez is hard at work in terms of getting the opportunities 

out there for workforce investment boards, employers, states, to 

take advantage of what is going to be a much smarter program in 

terms of connecting people to openings that are out there. 

So I realize you just started the wheels turning. But, can you tell 

me if a state or a group that wanted to pursue a pilot program, is 

there anything that obstructs them or blocks them from incorporating some of the—components that the Department of Labor is 

now starting to promote? 

Secretary VILSACK. No, in fact, Congressman, we are encouraging 

that. In working with Secretary Perez, there are several elements 

of the application process and criteria that speaks specifically to 

the work that they are doing to try to dovetail and to integrate. I 

think that Congress was fairly clear. They wanted us to work collaboratively at the Federal level with sister agencies. They wanted 

us to work collaboratively with state governments and local governments and nonprofits, anybody who was interested in trying to 

make the connection. I would say that I would certainly agree with 

you on the minimum wage issue. It is 3.6 million folks who would 

not need SNAP or as much SNAP if the minimum wage were increased. 

And we are focused despite the fact we had 54 months of private 

sector job growth, a record. The long-term unemployed still continue to be a problem, and those are precisely the people that we 

are likely to get connected here in this employment and training 

effort. That is certainly going to be a focus. 

Mr. COURTNEY. Thank you. You know, this morning in The Day 

(formerly The New London Day) which is the paper of record for 

New London County, the unemployment rate is still 6.8 percent, 

but the headline was: Good Help is Harder to Find. And it talked 

about how employers now, as opposed to a year or 2 years ago, 

there are openings. They are not getting 100 applicants, they are 

getting maybe a dozen at most. And again, trying to connect people 

to those openings is now becoming more and more of a challenge. 

Secretary VILSACK. And what I hope from this is that the folks 

in the Human Services Department in the State of Connecticut 

speak to and communicate with the Workforce Development folks. 

Right now I don’t think enough of that happens at the state level 

because these folks over here know who the SNAP beneficiaries 

are, and these folks over here know where the jobs are. They don’t 

necessarily talk to one another. If they did, we would make better 

connections. So that is part of what we are going to try to encourage is more collaboration within departments, within states as 

well. 

Mr. COURTNEY. I think that would be a good message for all of 

us, all the Members, to take back to their states, both with the Agricultural Act of 2014 and the Workforce Opportunity and InvestVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:10 Dec 19, 2014 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 I:\DOCS\113-22\89880.TXT BRIAN
37 

ment Act, there is some good synergy that can accelerate the recovery. 

With that, I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back. The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Illinois for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. BUSTOS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Since this is likely our 

last hearing that we will have during this Congressional session, 

I too want to thank the Chairman and the Ranking Member for 

your hard work. It has been a pleasure to work with folks who understand the importance of working together, and I personally 

want to thank the Secretary for coming to my district on Monday. 

It was, I thought, a great session with our farmers, and I want to 

thank you for taking the time to come. 

I apologize in advance if any of these questions were asked. I just 

have a couple. I was in another hearing for another committee I 

am on, but it is my understanding that you will be partnering with 

states and local workforce boards and also local nonprofits. But will 

the pilots be working directly with local employers and also with 

local educational institutions such as community colleges as we 

move forward on this? Or is that just up to what the pilots end up 

applying for? 

Secretary VILSACK. There is nothing to discourage that, and 

probably there is a lot to encourage that. That is precisely what we 

want to see is that collaboration at all levels. And so obviously that 

would be a factor in strengthening an application if we saw a significant collaboration at the local level. 

Mrs. BUSTOS. And as it pertains to encouraging different components of the pilot programs, something I hear all over our Congressional district when I am home is the importance of affordable 

childcare for people to go back to work. Will there also be any components to encourage childcare as part of these pilot programs? 

Anything that the USDA can do to help have that part of the equation as we talk about this, going forward? 

Secretary VILSACK. There would be the capacity for that element 

and other elements similar to that—transportation issues—to be 

addressed in pilot, and proposed, in terms of utilization of some of 

the resources for the benefit of reducing those barriers. Bottom line 

is a better understanding of what those barriers are and a better 

understanding of how best to address the barriers. That is part of 

what we hope to be able to get from these applications. 

Mrs. BUSTOS. Okay, and then last, you were just in our district 

so you understand the rural nature of it. We have pockets of a little 

bit more urban areas, but I represent mostly a rural district. So as 

the pilot applications come in, do you consider kind of the disparities and to make sure we have, geographically, a good representation in these pilot programs. 

Secretary VILSACK. That is absolutely part of what we will consider, and I can assure you that we will have a good representation 

of both urban, suburban, and rural areas so that we can identify 

best practices for all states. Every state has a rural area, and some 

states obviously are more rural than others. But at the end of the 

day, a lot of the unemployment challenges, a lot of the SNAP challenges are in those small, rural areas where unemployment is higher and long-term unemployment is more severe and poverty is 

38 

more persistent. So clearly we are going to be focused on making 

sure we address the rural challenges. And again, if we can identify 

best practices, things already at work, then hopefully we can replicate that in other states and bring these SNAP numbers down. 

Mrs. BUSTOS. Okay. Very good, I look forward to seeing how this 

all unfolds as we move forward, and I want to thank you for your 

time today. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady yields back. Seeing no other 

Members seeing recognition for a question, the chair would simply 

like to note once again to the Secretary, thank you for being here, 

your insights, and your appreciation for how important the Committee views this endeavor to be. 

And with that, I thank all of my colleagues for their attention, 

and under the rules of the Committee, the record for today’s hearing will remain open for 10 calendar days to receive additional material and supplemental written responses from the witness to any 

questions posed by a Member. This full Committee hearing is now 

adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:52 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

39 

* There was no response from the witness by the time this hearing went to press. 

SUBMITTED STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE SOUTHERLAND II, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM FLORIDA

I would like to thank Chairman Lucas and Ranking Member Peterson for holding 

this important hearing on the implementation of the bipartisan pilot projects passed 

in this year’s farm bill. These projects, aimed at enabling struggling Americans to 

advance toward work, are based on the proven success of the 1996 welfare reform 

law. The testimony of U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, which noted ‘‘we 

want to help people move towards self-sufficiency the right way by helping them to 

secure and maintain jobs,’’ is also appreciated. 

The farm bill empowered ten states to operate pilot projects to engage able-bodied 

adults in TANF-style work and job training programs with the goal of reducing government dependency and returning individuals to work. Similar demonstration 

projects were instrumental in the years leading up to the landmark 1996 welfare 

reform law. As we all know, the law was highly successful, resulting in increased 

earnings for beneficiaries and reducing welfare caseloads by more than 2⁄3 over 10 

years. Welfare reform was also responsible for bringing child poverty to an all-time 

low. 

Consequently, I was honored that an amendment I offered to the farm bill helped 

set the stage for implementation of these pilot projects. We know what works and 

must continue to promote work and self-sufficiency as the ultimate goal. 

As the U.S. Department of Agriculture implements this pilot program, it is critical 

that the agency adhere to the intent of Congress and reflect the statutory language 

in its selection process. This includes testing a range of strategies, a broad spectrum 

of geographic regions, rapid attachment to employment, and mandatory as well as 

voluntary participation in employment activities. 

Thank you again and I appreciate the House Agriculture Committee’s and Secretary of Agriculture’s attention to this important pilot project to improve the lives 

of vulnerable Americans. 

SUBMITTED QUESTIONS

Questions Submitted by Hon. Gloria Negrete McLeod, a Representative in 

Congress from California 

Response from Hon. Thomas ‘‘Tom’’ J. Vilsack, Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture * 

Question 1. How much is the Federal investment in E&T without the incentive 

grants and what are you doing to prioritize the use of the funds in communities 

with the highest unemployment, like San Bernardino County? 

Question 2. Even when there is investments of E&T dollars in high unemployment 

areas, E&T can’t really place people in jobs that aren’t there, correct? Can you 

speak to why SNAP eligibility is essential for families and communities with longterm unemployment? 

Question 3. It is my understanding that most SNAP recipients are children and 

that the adults who receive aid and can work, do work, but the wages they receive 

for their work are too low and they remain under poverty. Is there anything that 

a SNAP E&T Program can do—that is scalable—to change this dynamic? 

Question 4. My public housing authority in San Bernardino County is a Moving 

to Work Agency. The primary goal of the Moving to Work program is to help public 

housing residents become more self-sufficient. Consequently, our housing authority 

has implemented work requirements and they are continuing to provide robust supportive services for residents. These residents are also usually receiving some form 

of food assistance. Do you see some synergy working with Moving to Work Agencies 

like the one in San Bernardino County? What do you think is the best way to help 

MTW agencies that are using some of their HUD money on workforce development 

efforts to also leverage that money with funds USDA has available to encourage 

work requirements? 

Æ