U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

30–986 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019

S. HRG. 115–598 

NUTRITION PROGRAMS: 

PERSPECTIVES FOR THE 2018 FARM BILL 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, 

NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 14, 2017 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov/ 
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY 

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas, Chairman 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

JONI ERNST, Iowa 

CHARLES GRASSLEY, Iowa 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

DAVID PERDUE, Georgia 

LUTHER STRANGE, Alabama 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

MICHAEL BENNET, Colorado 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

JOE DONNELLY, Indiana 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

ROBERT P. CASEY, JR., Pennsylvania 

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland 

JAMES A. GLUECK, JR., MAJORITY STAFF DIRECTOR

DANITA M. MURRAY, MAJORITY CHIEF COUNSEL

JESSICA L. WILLIAMS, CHIEF CLERK

JOSEPH A. SHULTZ, MINORITY STAFF DIRECTOR

MARY BETH SCHULTZ, MINORITY CHIEF COUNSEL

(II) 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

HEARING(S): 

Nutrition Programs: Perspectives for the 2018 Farm Bill ................................... 1 

Thursday, September 14, 2017 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY SENATORS 

Roberts, Hon. Pat, U.S. Senator from the State of Kansas, Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry ................................................. 1 

Stabenow, Hon. Debbie, U.S. Senator from the State of Michigan ..................... 3 

Panel I 

Lipps, Brandon, Acting Deputy Under Secretary, Administrator, Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services, Food and Nutrition Service, US Department 

of Agriculture, Washington, DC .......................................................................... 5 

Harden, Gil, Assistant Inspector General for Audit, Office of Inspector General, US Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC ..................................... 7 

Coffey, Ann M., Assistant Inspector General for Investigations, Office of Inspector General, US Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC ................. 7 

Panel II 

Schaeffer, Sam, Chief Executive Officer and Executive Director, Center for 

Employment Opportunities, New York, NY ....................................................... 26 

Parker, Bryan, Community Food Bank of Eastern Oklahoma, Tulsa, OK ......... 27 

Wright, Jimmy, President, Wright’s Markets, Inc., Opelika, AL Dr. Diane 

Schanzenbach, Director and Margaret Walker Alexander Professor, Institute for Policy Research, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL .................. 29 

Diane Schanzenbach, Director and Margaret Walker Alexander Professor, 

Institute for Policy Research, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL ........... 31 

Riendeau, Brian, Executive Director, Dare to Care Food Bank, Louisville, 

KY .......................................................................................................................... 33

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Harden, Gil ....................................................................................................... 50 

Lipps, Brandon ................................................................................................. 56 

Parker, Bryan ................................................................................................... 60 

Riendeau, Brian ................................................................................................ 62 

Schaeffer, Sam .................................................................................................. 67 

Schanzenbach, Diane ....................................................................................... 83 

Wright, Jimmy .................................................................................................. 93 

QUESTION AND ANSWER: 

Harden, Gil: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow ......................... 102 

Written response to questions from Hon. Amy Klobuchar ........................... 103 

Lipps, Brandon: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow ......................... 104 

Written response to questions from Hon. Patrick J. Leahy .......................... 106 

Written response to questions from Hon. John Hoeven ................................ 108 
Page

IV 

Lipps, Brandon—Continued 

Written response to questions from Hon. Michael Bennet ........................... 108 

Riendeau, Brian: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow ......................... 110 

Written response to questions from Hon. Patrick J. Leahy .......................... 111 

Written response to questions from Hon. Sherrod Brown ............................ 112 

Schaeffer, Sam: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow ......................... 114 

Schanzenbach, Diane: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts .................................. 118 

Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow ......................... 118 

Written response to questions from Hon. Patrick J. Leahy .......................... 120 

Written response to questions from Hon. Sherrod Brown ............................ 121 

Written response to questions from Hon. Michael Bennet ........................... 122 

Written response to questions from Hon. Robert Casey, Jr. ......................... 122 

Wright, Jimmy: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow ......................... 124 

Written response to questions from Hon. Patrick J. Leahy .......................... 125 

Written response to questions from Hon. Sherrod Brown ............................ 126 
(1) 

NUTRITION PROGRAMS: 

PERSPECTIVES FOR THE 2018 FARM BILL 

Thursday, September 14, 2017 

UNITED STATES SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY, 

Washington, DC 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:33 a.m., in Room 

216, Hart Senate Office Building, Hon. Pat Roberts, Chairman of 

the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Roberts, Boozman, Ernst, Grassley, Thune, Daines, 

Perdue, Strange, Stabenow, Brown, Klobuchar, Bennet, Gillibrand, 

Donnelly, Heitkamp, Casey, and Van Hollen. 

STATEMENT OF HON. PAT ROBERTS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE 

STATE OF KANSAS, CHAIRMAN, U.S. COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY 

Chairman ROBERTS. Good morning. I call this meeting of the 

Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry to order. 

Over the last several months, I along with our Ranking Member 

Stabenow and our colleagues on this Committee have been working 

on a new Farm Bill. An important part of this process has been to 

hold hearings on each Farm Bill title and to listen to stakeholders. 

I am proud to say that the Committee has efficiently conducted 

our work in this area, having held hearings so far on eight titles. 

Today’s hearing covers the nutrition programs in Title IV of the 

Farm Bill. Two titles remain. 

The reauthorization process affords us the opportunity to review 

the full range of USDA programs to ensure that they are operating 

efficiently and effectively. Not every program needs a major overhaul, but many Federal programs can benefit from increased efficiency, improved integrity, and the reduction of waste. 

As we conduct this review, it is important to remember the purpose of these critical nutrition programs. They are not about longterm dependency; they are about giving aid in times of trouble. 

They are about ensuring our nation’s security, helping folks become 

productive members of our economy, and about assisting the vulnerable among us who cannot help themselves. 

Part of a thorough review includes verifying that the programs 

are being administered and implemented properly at the Federal 

and State levels. 

Now, unfortunately, we have learned of some significant issues 

regarding the administration and oversight of the Supplemental 

Nutrition Assistance Program, or what we call SNAP. 
2 

Investigations by the Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition Service, the Department’s Office of Inspector General, and 

the Department of Justice have revealed that States have purposely used, quote, ‘‘whatever means necessary,’’ unquote, to mislead the Federal Government to obtain bonuses or avoid financial 

penalties. 

Witnesses here today will provide details, but what we have discovered is that the integrity of the SNAP program cannot be 

verified. In all but a few States, the process used to measure errors 

has failed. Thus, the level of erroneous payments States have made 

when administering this program is completely unknown. 

Simply put, no one knows the error rate of SNAP, and that is 

unacceptable. The Federal Government does not even know the 

basic elements of the problem, such as how long this has been occurring. 

This program accounts for over 75 percent of Farm Bill spending. 

If we are unable to verify that this program is making every dollar 

count and ensure that the right amount of assistance is going to 

those who really need it, then something needs to change. With the 

help of the distinguished Ranking Member, something will change. 

We are not talking about rampant fraud here. We are not talking 

about rampant program abuse. We are talking about States cheating and gaming the system, resulting in an inability to even measure how many taxpayer dollars are being spent in error. This is not 

fair to taxpayers. It is certainly not fair to those who depend on 

this program, and it is not right. 

It is our duty to ensure that the integrity of this program, which 

is vital to those among us in need, is able to be measured and 

verified. 

Once that is accomplished, we must also ensure that this program is truly serving those in need, helping them to achieve selfsustainability, and not hindering their ability to succeed. 

Now, much has been made of the, quote, ‘‘work requirements, but 

it is our job to be deliberative and informed when considering how 

we truly achieve the goal of enabling those who are receiving public 

assistance to attain self-sufficiency. 

Now, the last Farm Bill included a significant investment in 

work pilots to test effective methods of ensuring the long-term success of folks in need of assistance. We will need to build on that 

investment and continue to test proven methods of success. 

As we undertake this process, with the goals of program integrity 

and truly helping people to become self-sustaining, we will need 

the support and flexibility of all program stakeholders. 

Lines in the sand and uncompromising positions will benefit nobody and especially not the vulnerable populations these programs 

serve. Working together, I am confident we can find a way to ensure the integrity of SNAP and the critical need that the program 

meets. 

With that, it is my pleasure to recognize Senator Stabenow for 

any remarks she may have, but before yielding, I would like to take 

a moment to express appreciation to the Department’s Food and 

Nutrition Services and other agencies for their work in providing 

assistance to those affected by the recent tragedies with regards to 

the hurricanes that we have experienced in this country, 
3 

I understand that Department’s staff have worked around the 

clock to provide services and ensure that program participants and 

others have access to assistance in this time of need. I have received reports lauding the Department’s preparation and response, 

and I would like to thank Secretary Perdue and his staff and for 

everybody involved for their dedication and hard work. 

It will take this same spirit of working together for us to remedy 

these and other issues that need to be addressed to pass a Farm 

Bill. 

Senator Stabenow, I yield to you for any comments you may 

make. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DEBBIE STABENOW, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN 

Senator STABENOW. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and it continues to be a great pleasure to work with you. I want to start out 

with echoing the comments that you just made abouthe heartbreaking devastation that Hurricanes Harvey and Irma have 

caused in the South. These destructive storms underscore the critical need for disaster assistance for both our farmers and our families. 

I want to commend Secretary Perdue for his quick action to administer food assistance and provide flexibility for those in the path 

of these storms so that having enough to eat is the least of their 

worries. 

Our families deserve a reliable safety net in times of need. 

Whether it is making Disaster SNAP available during a hurricane 

or ensuring that a veteran can weather the storm of job loss during 

a recession, nutrition assistance programs are vital to rebuilding 

after disaster strikes. 

The Great Recession hit our country like a force of nature, causing too many Americans to lose their homes and jobs. For those 

who face unexpected unemployment, or underemployment, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program is a short-term lifeline to 

keep food on the table while they look for a stable, long-term job 

that allows them to fully support their families. 

This is a point worth repeating: SNAP supports families. It is 

about America saying, ‘‘We’ve got your back when there is an emergency.’’ 

Nearly half of SNAP recipients are children, as we know. The 

vast majority of SNAP recipients are children, seniors, people with 

disabilities, or parents and caregivers that live in these households. 

Approximately 1.5 million veterans receive SNAP at some point 

during the year, and many of these heroes are considered able-bodied, despite lasting challenges from their times of service. 

Even current military families face food hardship. Many utilize 

SNAP and visit food banks that are often stretched too thin to 

meet community needs. 

It is important that we keep these real people in mind, like Mr. 

Parker who is here today to share his story about the impact of 

SNAP in his life, and that is an important story. It is important 

to to reflect on other stories as well as we consider changes to nutrition assistance in the Farm Bill. 
4 

As a Committee, we can make improvements to SNAP. We need 

to. We need to make improvements in every single area, and hold 

every single program in the Farm Bill accountable, as we should 

for every area of the Federal government. I will continue to be very 

focused on making sure that we are doing that while still preserving critical food access. 

As we know, we have a farm safety net and a family safety net. 

We need to make sure there is accountability in both and support 

for both. As prices go down in farm country while jobs have gone 

up for families, it is really important to note that we will see significant savings over the next 10 years in SNAP because things are 

working as they should, people are going back to work and needing 

less assistance with their food. 

In 2014, we made common-sense reforms to further strengthen 

the integrity of nutrition assistance. While nutrition programs have 

historically had an extremely low rate of error and fraud, we addressed rare cases of misuse while protecting benefits and eligibility for SNAP participants that needed access to the family safety 

net. 

We also included Employment and Training Pilots to allow 

States to test innovative strategies to help SNAP participants find 

stable, long-term employment. 

As we will hear today, these pilots, along with the broader SNAP 

Employment and Training Program, create important community 

partnerships to connect people to jobs and training that works. 

Rather than focusing on arbitrary cuts to push people off of needed food assistance, we should focus, as we have in the past, on the 

types of voluntary partnerships that help families succeed. 

As I indicated before, the good news is this is already happening. 

As the economy has improved and people are getting back to work, 

we certainly want the economy to move faster, so everyone has the 

opportunity for a good-paying job. But we are seeing savings in the 

nutrition programs. They are working as intended. 

The Congressional Budget Office recently estimated that the 

Farm Bill is projected to save $80 billion more than initially expected, largely driven by reduced spending on food assistance. 

Looking ahead to the next Farm Bill, we will also continue to 

look for ways that we can strengthen health outcomes in SNAP 

through efforts like SNAP Nutrition Education and the very successful Food Nutrition Incentive Program that has often been 

called Double-Up Bucks. 

We will also ensure that oversight of SNAP at the State and Federal level is working as it should. 

I look forward to hearing from the USDA and the Inspector General’s office today on the steps that are already being taken to ensure accuracy and timeliness in SNAP. 

I also want to learn more about the ways we can support the 

work the Food and Nutrition Service is doing to strengthen the 

quality control program. 

Mr. Chairman, as always, I look forward to working with you as 

we move forward to put together a great Farm Bill and continue 

to fine-tune these programs while also protecting food access for 

millions of families. 

Thank you. 
5 

Chairman ROBERTS. I thank the Senator. 

I welcome the first panel of witnesses before the Committee this 

morning. 

Mr. Brandon Lipps, Acting Deputy Under Secretary, Administrator, Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services within the Department. Mr. Lipps currently serves as the Administrator of the Food 

and Nutrition Service, as well as the Acting Deputy Under Secretary of Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services at the Department. As the FNS Administrator, he oversees 15 nutrition assistance programs at the Department, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. 

Prior to his time at the USDA, Mr. Lipps served as Chief of Staff 

in the Office of Chancellor Robert Duncan at Texas Tech University-home of the ever-passing, unsuccessful Red Raiders—and led 

nutrition policy for the House Agriculture Committee during the 

2014 Farm Bill. 

Welcome to you, sir, and I look forward to your testimony. 

Mr. Harden, Mr. Gil Harden, Assistant Inspector General for 

Audit with the Office of Inspector General. Mr. Harden is the Assistant Inspector General for the Audit at the Department of the 

Office of Inspector General. He currently manages all audits of the 

Department and previously has served in a variety of roles in audit 

work at the OIG headquarters. Mr. Harden began his career as an 

auditor with the Western Regional Office, and he also oversaw Performance and Financial Audits for the Northwest Region. 

Welcome, sir, and I look forward to hearing from your perspective. 

Lastly, we have Ms. Ann M. Coffey, Assistant Inspector General 

for Investigations at the Office of Inspector General. Accompanying, Mr. Harden to respond to questions is Ann Coffey, who 

also joins us from the Department of Agriculture Office of Inspector 

General. She has served as the Assistant Inspector General for Investigations ever since 2015. She began her career at the Office of 

Inspector General, subsequently worked as a special agent with the 

OIG and then went over to the Department of Homeland Security. 

Following her return to the Office of Inspector General in 2005, Ms. 

Coffey led the Special Operations Division and then the Investigations Liaison and Hotline Division. 

Welcome to you, ma’am, and I look forward to your testimony. 

Mr. Lipps. 

STATEMENT OF BRANDON LIPPS, ACTING DEPUTY UNDER 

SECRETARY, ADMINISTRATOR, FOOD, NUTRITION, AND CONSUMER SERVICES, FOOD AND NUTRITION SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. LIPPS. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Stabenow, and members of the Committee. 

Let me start by thanking you for the recognition of Secretary 

Perdue’s leadership in this disaster and the hard work of our staff, 

certainly at FNS, but Department-wide, as we work to protect agricultural infrastructure and make sure that all Americans are fed 

during this time. The staff really has worked overtime to ensure 

that everybody gets fed, and we appreciate that. 
6 

I am honored to be here today to talk about the Supplemental 

Nutrition Assistance Program Quality Control system. As you stated, I am the Acting Deputy Under Secretary and Administrator for 

the Food and Nutrition Service. I look forward to working with this 

Committee to ensure those most in need have access to food by administering FNS programs efficiently, effectively, and with the utmost integrity. 

Working in partnership with State agencies, FNS programs leverage our Nation’s agricultural abundance to ensure that no 

American goes hungry. 

You have invited me here today to talk about SNAP quality control, or as we often refer to it, QC. SNAP’s QC system measures 

improper payments, often referred to as the payment error rate. 

This rate is a combination of payments that are too high and those 

that are too low. It is a measure of errors in issuing benefits, not 

the misuse of benefits. 

Quality control is a two-tiered system of shared responsibility between the States and FNS. States review cases for errors, and FNS 

reviews a sample of those to ensure that States have, in fact, made 

the correct determination. 

Typically, USDA releases a national error rate for SNAP on an 

annual basis. However, USDA and the Office of Inspector General 

both found bias in the QC data which prevented us from releasing 

a national error rate for fiscal years 2015 and 2016. 

FNS noted that rate reductions appeared to happen too quickly, 

like dropping off a cliff, making us question the integrity of the QC 

system. That led SNAP to create four different statistical errors to 

comb the data for bias. When FNS found that all eight States we 

looked at showed problems in all four categories, they quickly 

moved to an in-depth review of all 53 State agencies’ QC data. 

The results surprised and greatly concerned our experts. Some 

States had made inadvertent process errors, but more often, States 

were hiding errors from Federal reviewers. In doing so, they bypassed our data controls, preventing SNAP from catching the bias 

until the new indicators were developed. 

Based on our findings and those from our colleagues at OIG, 

FNS began implementing corrective actions with these 42 States to 

eliminate the bias at the State level in late 2014. FNS has also 

made our own policies, guidance, and review processes more robust. 

We issued memos and guidance to States, revised our quality control handbook, provided additional training to Federal and State 

staff, developed a new management evaluation guide to strengthen 

our oversight, and made new data services available to validate 

State findings. 

Let me be clear, FNS owns our role in these problems and is taking strong action to solve them, but the most egregious problems 

we saw do not result from unclear guidance. For example, we 

learned that in some states, error reduction committees, which are 

intended to identify errors and prevent them going forward, were 

instead hiding the errors they found from FNS. 

The changes FNS has made to our QC system will make those 

behaviors less likely, but fully eliminating the bias will require a 

commitment of good faith on all sides. 
7 

FNS has not released a national error rate since fiscal year 2014 

because the data was unreliable. I fully expect to release an error 

rate for fiscal year 2017, in June of 2018, when these reforms and 

training efforts are fully reflected in the data. 

FNS is committed to continually improving the QC system and 

the integrity of SNAP as a whole. We will hold ourselves accountable and our State partners accountable. 

We look forward to working with you on additional solutions to 

prevent this problem in the future. 

Thank you, and I am happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lipps can be found on page 56 

in the appendix.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. Mr. Harden. 

STATEMENT OF GIL HARDEN, ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR AUDIT, OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, DC; 

ACCOMPANIED BY ANN M. COFFEY, ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL 

OF INVESTIGATIONS, OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. HARDEN. Good morning, Chairman Roberts, Ranking Member Stabenow, and members of the Committee. Thank you for the 

opportunity to testify about OIG’s efforts to help FNS ensure the 

integrity of the SNAP program. 

With me today is Ann Coffey, the Assistant IG for Investigations. 

My statement today will focus on our audit of SNAP’s QC process 

as well a related investigation. 

Through our audits and investigations, OIG helps FNS improve 

its general oversight of SNAP. Over the past 3 years, we have published six audit reports that resulted in 77 recommendations and 

$299 million in monetary findings. Our SNAP-related investigations over the same period have led to over 2,300 arrests, 1,600 indictments, 1,500 convictions, as well as $296 million in monetary 

results. 

In 2013, OIG initiated an audit of SNAP’s QC process. Though 

we recognize the improper payment rate for SNAP had been steadily declining, SNAP benefits had nearly doubled due to increased 

participation. Even at a low error rate, improper payments for 

SNAP still averaged over $2 billion annually. 

We found that confidence cannot be placed in FNS’s reported 

error rate. For example, in all eight States we visited, private consultants and/or State error review committees used methods to 

mitigate case errors found during the QC process rather than report the cases as errors. 

A number of States hired third-party consultants who actively 

worked to eliminate errors and, therefore, improve the State’s error 

rate. These States saw dramatic, if unwarranted, improvements in 

their error rates—from 21 to 85 percent, depending on the State. 

We also found other issues with how error rates were calculated. 

For example, State QC reviewers did not correctly identify and calculate payment errors during their review of SNAP cases. As a result, errors were improperly excluded from the SNAP error rate. 

Also, FNS did not adequately review State QC results. State QC 

results in 27 of the 60 cases we reviewed were unsupported, ques-
8 

tionable, or inaccurate. As a result, FNS lacked the assurance 

needed to validate the accuracy of States’ reported error rates, 

which serve as the primary basis for determining the SNAP national error rate. 

In total, we made 19 recommendations to help FNS improve the 

QC process. As of August 2017, FNS had closed 14 of these recommendations. 

One unique OIG investigation has highlighted significant problems with the QC process. Our investigators received a whistleblower complaint related to the activities of a third-party consultant working in one State. So far, this investigation has resulted in 

two States, Virginia and Wisconsin, agreeing to pay over $14 million to resolve allegations about both States’ administration of 

SNAP. 

Both States admitted that they used consultants to review the 

error cases identified by their workers. The consultant advised the 

use of several improper and biased QC practices, including finding 

a basis for dropping error cases from the review, selectively applying requirements and policies to overturn and reduce errors, and 

asking beneficiaries leading questions to obtain desired answers to 

eliminate error potential. These practices improperly decreased the 

States’ reported error rate, and as a result, States were paid performance bonuses for which they were not entitled. This investigation is ongoing. 

I want to thank the Committee again for the opportunity to testify, and I am open to—welcome to any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Harden can be found on page 50 

in the appendix.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. Thank you very much. 

Let me note that we appreciate the statements of Mr. Lipps and 

Mr. Harden, and Ms. Coffey is here for questions only. 

Thank you to Panel 1 for taking the time to join us today. I appreciate it, but what I have heard is extremely disturbing. 

The integrity of the largest food assistance program that spends over $70 billion a year is simply unknown. 

The OIG has found that the quality control process is broken and 

in need of reform, and not only that, but we have a number of 

States that have defrauded the Federal Government and are being 

investigated by the Department of Justice. 

Mr. Lipps, you stated that the 2014 error rate data raised questions at FNS. Once the agency completed its in-depth review, did 

you discover any indication of when bias entered a State’s quality 

control process? Do you have a sense at what point the State error 

rates became inaccurate? 

Mr. LIPPS. Senator, unfortunately, I cannot give you an exact answer to that question. 

We do have concern that bias has been in the system for quite 

some time. The OIG notes in its report that this consultant first 

started acting with States as early as—I believe it was 2004 when 

States’ individual error rates started dropping dramatically. So I 

think there has been some level of bias in the system for over a 

decade. 

Chairman ROBERTS. 2004. 

Mr. LIPPS. Yes, sir. 
9 

Chairman ROBERTS. So we have a problem here that could have 

started 13 years ago. 

Mr. LIPPS. That is correct. 

Chairman ROBERTS. The FNS review, Mr. Lipps, for fiscal year 

2015 found that 42 out of 53 State and Territory agencies were improperly administrating the quality control process. 

A document referenced by the media indicated that the very preliminary estimates of the 2015 national error rate could be between 

4 and 7 percent. Now, if that is the case, 7 percent would be almost 

double the 2014 error rate. Something is pretty fishy here. That was biased and would have indicated over $5 billion in 

error. Do you have any updated estimates for 2015? 

Mr. LIPPS. Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, we do not. The data is 

so significantly biased that we do not feel we can provide you an 

accurate measure of that rate. 

Chairman ROBERTS. So you are basically saying that the data 

was unreliable, and so, therefore, you could not release the error 

rate for 2015 or 2016? 

Mr. LIPPS. Yes, sir. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Do you have better data now? 

Mr. LIPPS. We believe we will have accurate data with the ability 

to report a rate to you in 2017. As I stated in my testimony, we 

have entered corrective action plans with these 42 States, and believe that the bias will be removed significantly, and our statisticians advise that we can get you an accurate rate for 2017. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Well, I appreciate that, but we have no idea how much taxpayer money was wasted. It could be $3 billion. It 

could be $5 billion. It could be $10 billion. 

Mr. LIPPS. Yes, sir. 

Chairman ROBERTS. I think it goes without saying, that is a lot 

of money. 

During the 2015 review, were States fully cooperating with FNS? 

Mr. LIPPS. Senator, there was a range on that. Some certainly 

were. Many were not, and there were certainly some egregious 

practices that OIG recognizes in their report. Some States were not 

forthcoming with information with FNS staff, and we did have difficulty getting all of the information from all of the States. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Can you describe some of the difficulties for 

us? 

Mr. LIPPS. For us to be able to perform accurate re-reviews, we 

have to have the entire case file from the States. States did not all 

want to give us access to their data. Sometimes there are legitimate issues with us being able to access that data, and we need 

to work on those going forward. But we do believe that some of the 

States were intentionally keeping that data from us. 

We believe that some States had destroyed portions of the data 

that was part of their review before we came in to review those. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Is this an open investigation? 

Mr. LIPPS. Yes, sir. There is an ongoing investigation that my 

colleagues at OIG might be able to comment on more thoroughly. 

Chairman ROBERTS. I understand the FNS did their own reviews 

of SNAP cases in 2016, while States worked to correct their processes. During the ’16 case reviews, what level of error did you find? 

Approximately how much in improper payments does that indicate? 
10 

Mr. LIPPS. Senator, I would unfortunately give you the same answer, that we cannot give you an accurate measure. 

I do think as the rate reported in 2014 was 3.66 percent and we 

have noted significant bias, it is definitely above 4 percent but 

could be significantly higher. 

Chairman ROBERTS. I recognize you just recently came on board 

of the Department. I think it was June. But it is absolutely imperative that we work together, the Department and all Committee 

members, to address these issues. 

Ms. Coffey, let me ask—the OIG noted that the investigation is 

ongoing, but Wisconsin and Virginia have settled with the Department of Justice. How many of the 42 States that have had issues 

are currently being investigated? 

Ms. COFFEY. Unfortunately, since it is an ongoing investigation 

and the States are considered the subjects, I cannot comment on 

the specific number, but it is multiple States that are involved in 

the investigation. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Multiple. 

Ms. COFFEY. Yes, sir. 

Chairman ROBERTS. So it could be all 42? It could be 20? Bigger 

than a bread box? What are we talking about here? 

Ms. COFFEY. I would say it is not all 42. That is what I can offer 

you at this time. 

Chairman ROBERTS. A significant number. 

Ms. COFFEY. It is a significant number, sir. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Have you ever encountered a case like this 

where so many States had been defrauding the Federal Government? 

Ms. COFFEY. Sir, I have been doing this job for a number of 

years, and I can tell you this is a unique situation. We have not 

encountered this type of an investigation previously in my experience. 

Chairman ROBERTS. We need a better adjective than ‘‘unique,’’ 

but we will work on that. 

During your investigation, did OIG look into the information regarding pressure, pressure on State employees to use information 

from a consultant? 

Ms. COFFEY. Sir, during the course of the investigation—and I 

think that is also part of public knowledge—for the State of Virginia, there was allegations that pressure was placed upon the employees to adhere to the methods from the consultant company, and 

that is something that we did look into. However, we do not have 

jurisdiction to impact the employees within the State of Virginia 

unless it was a criminal matter, and in that—in this instances, 

within the State of Virginia, it was an administrative matter that 

was handled by the State of Virginia. 

Chairman ROBERTS. If States under investigation decide not to 

settle with the Department of Justice, what further action could 

occur? 

Ms. COFFEY. I cannot comment specifically in this particular instance. However, just generally speaking, if there is a criminal or 

civil matter that we are working with the Department of Justice 

on, if we are not able to reach a settlement agreement, the next 
11 

step typically would be that that matter would go to trial, either 

a criminal or civil trial, depending on the nature of the litigation. 

Chairman ROBERTS. So that number of States that we have indicated before—15, 20—we do not know, or you cannot comment on 

it. I understand that. The Department of Justice would enter into 

that. 

Based on your in-depth audit, what role do you believe the al- most $50 million a year in State bonuses played in creating conflicts of interest? 

I am sorry. That goes to Mr. Harden. 

Mr. HARDEN. Mr. Chairman, we think the conflict of interest 

really stems from FNS’s two-tiered process for the QC process 

where States and the Federal level are involved. 

What we found was that process is vulnerable to State abuse due 

to conflicting interest between accurately reporting the error rates 

and incurring what would be penalties or mitigating errors and receiving bonuses for exceeding the standards. 

We considered this a very inherent conflict of interest for the 

States, and it is why it led to us make the recommendation that 

they are still working on to look at that process and see if there 

is a cost-beneficial way to move away from the two-tiered process 

to having either FNS do it alone or through a third party that is 

doing it independently. 

I would also want to recognize that as part of our working the 

audit, we know that this recommendation is not new, necessarily. 

It is something that was recommended back in 1987 by an outside 

study that noted the conflict of interest that went on with the process. 

Chairman ROBERTS. So, basically, the program was incentivizing 

bad behavior? 

Mr. HARDEN. Yes, the stuff that we heard from State—State staff 

as we did our work they expressed concern with what the consultants were wanting them to do and training them to do, but some 

States said it was kind of a keeping with the Jones type of thing. 

They knew they needed to use the consultants to help get their 

error rates down or else they would not be in line for the bonuses. 

They recognized that their competing for the bonuses was an inevitable consequence of that. 

Chairman ROBERTS. So they were gaming the system. 

Can you describe what you found in your audit regarding the 

methods by which States tried to eliminate errors or otherwise improperly reduce their error rate? You commented on that to some 

degree, but could you expand on that? 

Mr. HARDEN. Yes. We found that the consultants were used to 

train the State QC staff on techniques that would exploit 

vulnerabilities in the process. They focused—the consultants focused their work on what—mostly on QC workers and how they 

could mitigate the errors rather than use the errors to improve the 

process, which is what the intended part is. 

They also very much encouraged the use of error review committees by States to eliminate the errors as opposed to working on solutions to make the program stronger. 

Chairman ROBERTS. How did the FNS respond to the recommendations from the OIG audit? 
12 

Mr. HARDEN. I would say this was a very difficult audit. It is 

probably one of the most sensitive ones that I have worked on in 

my career, and I have been with OIG my whole career. 

But, in our typical fashion, we worked with the agency as we 

learned what we were learning through the process. We would sit 

down with the agency and make sure we understood what we were 

hearing and find out if there was any other information that we 

needed to consider. 

At the time we issued the report, we did not reach agreement on 

all the recommendations and the corrective actions to take, but I 

would like to say since that time, we have reached agreement on 

all 19 recommendations. They have reported out that they have implemented 14 of those recommendations and are working on the remaining five. 

So a number of the steps that Mr. Lipps referred to in terms of 

how they are improving the program are in line with the recommendations we made. So later down the road, when we take up 

reviewing this as a follow-up, we will look to see how effective 

those changes were. 

Chairman ROBERTS. But there was pushback prior to this latest 

better relationship that you had with FNS. 

Mr. HARDEN. Yes. There was pushback throughout the process, 

and I would say it is because of the sensitivity of the matter. It included discussions all the way up through the former Under Secretary level, but from my perspective and opinion, having discussions at that level is just part of the process that we do for any 

of our major audit work. We need to hear their views and how they 

think of things. We do not always agree, but we need to hear what 

they are having to say, talk those things out, and decide on proceeding on a path forward. 

Chairman ROBERTS. You noted in your testimony that in fiscal 

year 2013, SNAP had the highest participation level in the history 

of the program and yet had the lowest error rate. Still, $2.4 billion 

in error, that is not a small amount of money. Do you find recordhigh participation with a record-low error rate to be rather unusual? 

Mr. HARDEN. I would say that we were aware that the error rate 

was trending down, and it was—from what we learned as we did 

the QC audit, it was caused by a number of factors. 

One of those factors was FNS raised the error tolerance threshold in 2012 from $25 to $50 and which meant that anything below 

$50 as an error would not be reported, so that contributes to rates 

going down or having fewer errors. 

I also want to note that as part of the 2014 Farm Bill, Congress 

established that threshold in law and the way that it would be 

changed. 

But FNS also had policies that simplified things, like simplified 

reporting, which caused—or which did not require SNAP participants to report changes in income as frequently as they had before 

or had the case workers follow up on that. They would not know 

of different changes because they were not required to report them. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

I apologize to my colleagues for going overtime. 

Senator Stabenow. 
13 

Senator STABENOW. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a 

very important, very serious issue that we need to address, and I 

do want to make it clear, this is about State reporting and what 

they are doing. This is not about individual people committing 

fraud. This is about what the States are doing in the system. 

Many cases, I know the errors are data entry errors, administrative mistakes, or may be what you as well certainly have found in 

terms of what they are doing to manipulate the system. 

But, Mr. Harden, I wonder if you could give us examples of the 

kinds of things that are counted as errors. 

Mr. HARDEN. I may have to get back to you with specifics because there are like 48 different things that they check as part of 

the QC process, and it is income levels. It is work history, if they 

are working. 

One of the problems that we have found with the work requirements is that when the States were checking the work requirements, it was not a requirement for them to check on that, and so 

sometimes they did not do the extra digging to find out about that. 

It is determining their status in terms of being veterans or—those 

types of things are the things that they are checking to see—— 

Senator STABENOW. So it is how much they are really digging 

into—— 

Mr. HARDEN. Yes, that was part of the problem that we saw, is 

that States were following the guidance that FNS provided, and 

the guidance that FNS provided, from what we found and made 

recommendations about, was contrary or different than what was 

in the regulations. So they were following what was in the handbook, but the handbook did not agree with what the regulations 

say. 

Then, as the follow-on to that, the Federal reviewers at FNS 

were not really digging into and making independent assessments 

on what the States did. So there was not that full review that was 

necessary to know if the benefit amount that was given was correct. 

Senator STABENOW. Great. 

By the way, Ms. Coffey, thank you for being in here. I understand you are here for the tough questions, so chime in, please, at 

any time if you want to add anything. Did you want to add anything as it relates to the type of errors? 

Ms. COFFEY. I can comment a little bit about what Gil said. He 

is much more the expert as to specifically what they are checking 

for, but obviously, what we did see from the investigation side, as 

noted in the two public settlements, is that there was definitely encouragement on the part of the third-party consultants to misrepresent facts to the Federal authorities when they were submitting information to FNS in efforts to lower their payment error rate, 

things like stretching their income as expenses and altering documents of that nature. 

Senator STABENOW. Okay, the State was doing this. This is very 

serious. 

Ms. COFFEY. That is correct, the State. 

Senator STABENOW. Thank you. 

Do errors reflect both overpayments and underpayments, as I understand? 
14 

Mr. HARDEN. Yes. 

Senator STABENOW. Yes. So it could be—it could be either. 

Mr. HARDEN. Yes. 

Senator STABENOW. When there is an overpayment error, do the 

States, when they recoup the payment, which I understand they go 

back with an over payment, and they recoup the dollars, that 

counts as an error still? Correct? 

Mr. HARDEN. Yes, it should. But one of the things that we saw 

was that whenever the States QC reviewers would have identified 

an error over or under, they were not necessarily communicating 

that back to the case workers or the people that would carry out— 

actually pursuing that repayment. 

Senator STABENOW. So there is an overpayment. 

The same if there was an underpayment and they corrected 

that—— 

Mr. HARDEN. Correct. 

Senator STABENOW. —that counts as an error? 

Mr. HARDEN. Yes. 

Senator STABENOW. They should be reporting that—— 

Mr. HARDEN. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator STABENOW. —as an error, even though it has been corrected? 

Mr. HARDEN. Yes. 

Senator STABENOW. That they should be counting that, absolutely. 

So, Mr. Lipps, the USDA has issued several memos and undertaken a variety of things to correct the bias that you talked about 

with quality control system. Anything else you would want to describe to us in terms of the steps that have been taken, and do you 

believe that FNS will be able to issue reliable error rates for the 

fiscal year 2017? 

Mr. LIPPS. Thank you. 

I do think the most significant change is the corrective action 

plans that we have entered into with the 42 States, so we have 

identified where they were entering bias into the system, and we 

have required them to report to us how they are going to change 

that. We are following up on those with States. 

So following through on those plans is what gives our staff confidence that they are going to be able to report a rate for 2017, and 

I have asked that question as many different ways as I can, and 

I am assured we will get you a rate. 

There are a number of other important factors. I talked in my 

testimony about how we are not only changing our management 

model, but our training for our QC reviewers and ensuring the 

States are doing the same for theirs. 

We are requiring that any contracts with a third-party consultant with regard to QC reviews are reviewed by the FNS national 

office before they move forward to make sure they are not entering 

into a contract to receive the types of advice that they have received in the past. We want to limit that to legitimate process-oriented work. 

I also want to say thank you. Congress provided us $4 million 

in 2016 to hire 32 extra reviewers at the Federal level. I do think 

one of the issues is that our Federal reviewers were expected to re-
15 

view between 6-and 700 cases a year, which was not allowing them 

to dig as deeply as they needed to, and we certainly should have 

looked at that as an internal resource issue at FNS but appreciate 

the extra funds that you have provided for those FTEs, and we will 

ensure that they are working hard on that. 

Senator STABENOW. Along that line, because OIG has recommended moving away from the two-tier system to a single-tier 

system and in looking at that, it does raise questions. Would USDA 

need additional staff and resources to be able to move to a singletier system? 

Mr. LIPPS. I do not have a specific answer on that, Ranking 

Member Stabenow, but I certainly would expect that we would. 

The two-tier process should work, if administered properly. We 

have let a contract with an outside entity to look at this issue, and 

we will report back to you as soon as we get that information from 

them. 

Senator STABENOW. At this point, given what is happening in the 

focus and—the needed focus on all of this and the actions that are 

being taken, do you feel that additional legislation is needed to fix 

this, or are we talking about additional resources to support what 

the Department is currently doing? 

Mr. LIPPS. As we have talked about, we have made significant 

internal changes, and we believe that that will get us to a corrected 

error rate. 

I think we want to be careful that in the future, we do not end 

up back in this place, and we certainly want to work with you on 

any ideas that you may have with regard to legislation to make 

sure that this does not happen in the future, whether that regards 

for resources or a change in how this process works. 

Senator STABENOW. Thank you very much. 

Mr. LIPPS. Thank you. 

Senator STABENOW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Senator Ernst. 

Senator ERNST. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to our witnesses here today. 

Mr. Lipps, I would like to start with you, please. 

The USDA administers a handful of the over 80 different Federal 

programs designed to serve low-income Americans, and according 

to the GAO, these programs are too fragmented and overly complex 

for clients to navigate, for program managers and policymakers to 

assess program performance. 

What steps is the USDA taking to better coordinate with other 

agencies to make the safety net more cohesive? 

Mr. LIPPS. Senator, we have not taken significant steps since my 

arrival, but I will assure you that we do intend to do so, both within the 15 programs that we administer and outside of those. 

With regard to what these reviewers have to look like, application to this program, I would say is akin to filing a tax return. We 

have to look at income deductions, expenses, and then we have additional questions of whether they are complying with work requirements. These are very difficult processes, and we are always 

looking at ways to make sure that those eligible have access while 

we are making sure that we have integrity in the program. It is 
16 

always a difficult balance, but I think allowing programs, to work 

across, help on that. 

There are other agencies around the government that have access to data that we do not have at FNS that can be helpful in 

that, and so we hope to be working with you all on resolving some 

of those in the future. 

Senator ERNST. Yes, I hope so. 

It is a complicated area, and I think by linking many of our 

agencies together and nesting their skills and abilities together, not 

only can we better assist the Americans that need these support 

systems, but also stop, maybe, some of the fraud that might exist 

out there. So I would just encourage you to continue working with 

other agencies in those areas and also improve that coordination. 

Despite over 80 programs and billions and billions of taxpayer 

dollars that have been spent, the Federal Government just oftentimes fails to address the barriers to self-sufficiency faced by those 

that are currently living in poverty. 

Just a plug for one of my bills, earlier this year, I introduced the 

EMPOWERS Act, and that is a bill that would allow States to pursue pilot projects that integrate certain programs and better address the challenges that are faced by low-income families and individuals, but that does require a lot of these agencies working together to find a better way forward. 

So we are always looking for efficiencies out there and ways to 

prevent fraud and abuse within the system. 

Mr. Harden, SNAP is one of the largest benefit programs for 

those in need, and the OIG findings are very, very concerning. I 

think you have heard that over and over again from this panel. 

What specifically can we do as Congress, especially with the 

Farm Bill coming up? Are there ways that we can address these 

types of systems through any legislation, beyond rules that might 

be able to address it in the agencies? 

Mr. HARDEN. We would continue to have conversations with FNS 

as we go through this, but as a result of our work in the QC process, we did not see the need for any necessary legislative change. 

It was just a matter of applying the rules and regs that were already there. 

We do—as an OIG, if we see the need for legislative change, we 

do make those recommendations to agencies and have them work 

through their process for putting them forward. We also make sure 

that we advise committees that we have made those recommendations too, but we did not see that this time. 

Senator ERNST. Thank you. I appreciate that. 

Mr. Chair, I would thank you for raising this attention—or to our 

attention here at this level. Thank you for the proper oversight necessary for the program to be successful, and with that, Mr. Chair, 

I will yield back my time. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Senator Gillibrand. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you, Mr. chairman. 

Chairman ROBERTS. I am sorry. Senator Casey. I apologize. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. That is okay. 

Senator CASEY. Mr. Chairman, thanks very much. Thanks for 

this hearing. 

I want to thank our witnesses. 
17 

I want to start with the value of the SNAP program in a State 

like Pennsylvania, a big, diverse State with a lot of economic challenges. We have got, for example, in our State, SNAP helping 1 in 

12 workers in the State put food on the table. That means roughly 

more than 507,600 Pennsylvania workers live in households that 

participated in SNAP in the last year. That is what the Census 

data tells us. 

I spent 10 years in elected office in Pennsylvania, 8 of those as 

a State auditor general, which meant that I was on a daily basis 

kicking the hell out of State programs that were not efficient, effective, and in some cases wasting taxpayer dollars. 

So we have, I think, an enduring obligation to make sure that 

every program measures up to the expectations of taxpayers. That 

is why this hearing is so important. 

At the same time, I think there are some folks in Washington— 

I do not think anybody on this Committee, but some folks that use 

examples of waste, fraud, and abuse, or error or overpayment or 

whatever the description is, to take a meat ax to programs and just 

hack away at them while allowing other programs to be sacrosanct 

from that same kind of accountability. 

My question involves what can we do to make sure that what I 

am told is a payment error rate for fiscal year—I guess, is the most 

recent fiscal error rate for fiscal year 4? Is that correct? 

Mr. LIPPS. Yes, sir. 

Senator CASEY. That is 3.66 percent; is that right? 

Mr. LIPPS. Yes, sir. 

Senator CASEY. So, with that number in front of us, we have got 

to make sure that we are bringing that number down even more. 

I realize States, because they are dealing with the so-called QC 

program, may not measure error rates either fairly or consistently. 

So we have got to make sure that we are holding them accountable. 

I direct this to you, Mr. Lipps. What action can we take to ensure 

that our systems drive meaningful improvement as opposed to just 

improving the measure? 

Mr. LIPPS. Senator, I think there are a lot of different sides to 

that, but I do think that improving the QC rate is really about improving the program as it is delivered to the recipients. 

It is—we talk a lot about the money that is wasted for the taxpayer, and it is a very important factor in this. But, as you say, 

it is extremely important for the recipient. 

If your QC rate is zero, you are delivering the payment that 

every recipient deserves. That is really what this question is, and 

so the lower we get that to zero, the better job we are doing of ensuring that each recipient is getting the money that you intended 

them to have. 

Senator CASEY. How do you think we arrive at that point? What 

is the best way to get there? 

Mr. LIPPS. I think we always work for a lower error rate. I think 

these things that I have talked about that FNS has taken actions 

on with regard to working with States in our oversight to ensure 

we get there, it is a—it is a partnership between the Federal government and the States, and we constantly have to work on this 

issue. 
18 

As you know, there are a lot of State options, and that is the significance of States being involved in this process, is that they know 

theirs well. But we want to make sure that each State has the ability to adapt to best serve their citizens. 

Senator CASEY. The last question I have is with regard to the 

bonus and penalty system. I guess the report, among other things, 

indicates that both bonus and penalty contributed to the problem. 

Do you think there is a need to reevaluate that—reevaluate both, 

I guess I would say? 

Mr. LIPPS. There has been a lot of discussion on that issue, and 

we look forward to engaging with you on that. States have certainly said that both of those influenced their actions in this. 

Senator CASEY. Great. Thank you very much. 

Mr. LIPPS. Thank you. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Senator Boozman. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to follow up on the bonus situation. In the 2012 

Farm Bill, I offered an amendment on the floor that would strike 

the State bonuses for low error rates, money that is used to encourage the States to do something that they ought to be doing, anyway, and would reinvest those savings into the Emergency Food 

Assistance Program. 

As the OIG report shows, these bonuses obviously created an incentive for States to submit false error rates to FNS. 

Mr. Harden, do you think that Congress should do away with the 

bonuses? 

Mr. HARDEN. I mean, in terms of us looking at the program, I 

do not want to say what the policy should be, because that is kind 

of not the auditor’s role, but we did note that that was a big part 

of the conflict of interest at States when they were looking at themselves and trying to—they were—they used the consultants, and 

they knew that if they got lower error rates, they would be getting 

better bonuses. So it did incentivize them to get the error rates 

lower in a variety of ways. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Okay. Very good. 

So that is a nice way of saying that there is a significant problem 

there. 

Mr. HARDEN. Yes, sir. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Mr. Harden, as you stated in your testimony, 

OIG made 19 recommendations intended to assist FNS to improve 

their quality control process. Could you briefly summarize some of 

the recommendations? Do any of those recommendations carry 

more weight than others, and if so, which ones are they? Has FNS 

addressed them to the satisfaction of OIG? Of the five that FNS 

has closed out, what has been the delay? I know that is a lot. 

Mr. HARDEN. Yes. I think the most significant recommendation 

that we had in the report is the first one that talks about looking 

into the cost benefit of whether we should move away from the 

two-tier system. 

I know that FNS is acting on that right now. They have a request for proposal out and comments and are looking at that. 

A two-tier process can work, but it has to be managed the right 

way, as Mr. Lipps has said. But that is something we definitely 

wanted them to look at. 
19 

A lot of our other recommendations, they are also moving out on 

and have implemented in terms of making sure there is guidance 

out there if you are going to use consultants, because there was not 

guidance in place before, clarifying guidance for State QC workers 

in terms of how they are supposed to carry out their QC reviews, 

as well as redoubling their efforts on the Federal review process 

and making sure that they had the right type of oversight from the 

Federal level to really look at the cases that the States were doing 

and asking the proper questions. 

So there are only five that they are continuing to be open and 

have not reported back to the Department that they have implemented, and I think the one that will take the longest is the one 

on the two-tier process, which I think is expected currently to be 

put in place by next year. 

So we would then follow up usually after an agency has had a 

chance to implement the recommendations, say 18 to 24 months 

afterwards, so we would definitely be looking at this probably in 

the 2020–2021 audit cycle. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Very good. 

Mr. Lipps, what is the timeline to get the five closed out? 

Mr. LIPPS. I do not have exact dates on those, Senator. I think 

we are very close on each of them. We have worked with OIG to 

move forward. 

Obviously, on the question of the one-tier system, we have that 

contract, and it is going to take some time to do the analysis and 

get it back. So it will be at least a year on that issue. 

Senator BOOZMAN. So what do you say is the biggest challenges 

facing FNS as you make changes to implement OIG’s recommendations and improve the accuracy of the SNAP error rate? 

Mr. LIPPS. Senator, I think the biggest challenge is making sure 

that States are good partners in this and that they are working 

with us to a valid QC rate. 

I think the work of OIG and DOJ has encouraged them to do so, 

and we will continue to be good partners with them. 

What I want to commit to you from within the agency is that we 

re-review our QC oversight regularly so that we do not end up in 

the situation again. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Good. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the panel. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Senator Gillibrand. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am very grateful that we are holding this hearing. I know everyone on this Committee is very determined to fight poverty in 

our country, and we all know that SNAP is one of our most effective tools to do that. 

SNAP can lift families out of poverty, can drive down health care 

costs, and improve people’s health. It can help our children stay focused at school, and it can improve the lives of our most vulnerable 

citizens. 

The data are very clear that SNAP plays an enormous role at 

giving low-income Americans access to the nutrition they need, and 

SNAP helps Americans in every community and our cities, our 

small towns, and our rural communities. Even as SNAP participation drops, we must remind ourselves that there are millions of 
20 

Americans who are working hard but still do not earn enough to 

buy the food they need, and so they rely on SNAP. SNAP is an essential program, and it is a program that works. 

So I want to thank the witnesses today for their testimony and 

to work to make SNAP serve Americans more efficiently and effectively. 

Concerning the SNAP standard medical deduction, many of your 

concerns raised about quality control in this morning’s hearing are 

about how different State agencies conduct their reviews of client 

paperwork. 

I have recently introduced the SNAP Standard Medical Expense 

Deduction Act of 2017, that would standardize the deduction for 

seniors and disabled individuals with high medical costs. Would 

more uniform and simple deductions like this help make QC easier 

for the State agencies and FNS to verify? Any of you. 

Mr. LIPPS. Senator, we look forward to working with you on that. 

Certainly, standardizing things makes the QC process easier and 

the certification process easier. We are just always balancing, making sure folks get the benefits that they need and the right 

amounts when we standardize those things, and I am happy to 

visit with you further about that. 

Mr. HARDEN. I would tend to agree that if it can be standardized, 

it is usually helpful, and then it can be consistently implemented. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Any thoughts, Ms. Coffey? 

Ms. COFFEY. I will defer to my colleagues at the table, but yes, 

obviously standardization, even from the criminal investigative side 

of the house, is helpful for us when we are doing our reviews and 

investigations. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Mr. Lipps, we are hearing a lot about how 

SNAP participation rates are falling as the economy recovers. In 

New York, SNAP participation rates dropped 2 percent in a year. 

However, not every community recovers as quickly. 

The national rate of SNAP participation in rural counties is 16 

percent, which his 3 percent higher than cities. What steps is FNS 

taking to coordinate with State agencies, and what has been done 

to ensure that rural SNAP recipients, who may face transportation 

issues, can submit their paperwork? 

Mr. LIPPS. Senator, one of the great things about SNAP being administered by the States is it allows them the flexibility to make 

sure that they are serving their cities. Obviously, some of our 

States are overwhelmingly urban, and some are overwhelmingly 

rural, and some with a combination of both. 

So we look to the State agencies to make sure that they are serving all those populations, and in our technical guidance and overview with them, we want to make sure that everybody is getting 

served. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Just to clarify some of our earlier testimony, one of my colleagues referred to this as incidence of fraud. 

I do not understand that there is any allegations of fraud with regard to these paperwork concerns. Is this an issue of fraud, or is 

it mismanagement? 

Ms. COFFEY. So the investigation is actually—the settlement 

agreements were put in place to settle claims of False Claims Act, 
21 

so yes, that is a deliberate act on the part of the States to provide 

information that is not—we would consider to be fraudulent. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. So did you file a case against various States 

for fraud? 

Ms. COFFEY. So there are two settlement agreements we worked 

with the Department of Justice on. For our purposes, whenever we 

have an allegation within the—in fact, the Inspector General’s office on my side, we are obligated to go to the Attorney General as 

part of the IG Act, and so we did pursue that avenue. As a result, 

yes, the settlement claims that you see, they were not criminal, but 

they were civil matters that were taken up by the Department of 

Justice. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Are you able to tell us what States? 

Ms. COFFEY. At this point, I can tell you there are two that are 

public, but because this is still ongoing—the two that are public are 

Wisconsin and Virginia settlement agreements, but I cannot comment on the other ones because those are still in process as this 

time. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Can you describe, for the two that are public, why you believe it was intentional fraud? 

Ms. COFFEY. I think based upon the information that was submitted to FNS as well as we do a lot of work relative to interviewing individuals, State employees. The complaint originally 

came in from a State employee who was concerned about how the 

materials were being provided to FNS. All those factors play into 

whether or not we have a determination of whether there may be 

fraud present. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Senator Heitkamp. 

Senator HEITKAMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and again, thank 

you for this hearing. I think it is critically important that instead 

of waiting for the reauthorization process for the Farm Bill that we 

start talking about these issues in developing some strategies and 

techniques. 

I just want to kind of get back to Senator Gillibrand’s line of 

questioning, which is fraud, because I think if people—if the headline is the Inspector General finds fraud in the SNAP program, 

people are going to automatically assume that that was widespread 

fraud by applicants. 

So if we can just clarify what we are talking about and who— 

let us just be charitable and say the misunderstandings were with 

the State, I think it would be really important that we make sure 

that we understand what we are talking about here. 

Ms. Coffey? 

Ms. COFFEY. From the perspective of the States, typically what 

we see in many of the overpayment—or the payment error rate, it 

is administrative errors or mistakes that have been made, and that 

is really the majority of what you see within the program. 

However, in this particular instance, it is clear that there is a 

pattern. That it has been established utilizing these third-party 

consultants to basically look to change information that normally 

States would be reporting to FNS, and that information has either 

been withheld in some circumstances or altered in some fashion or 

guidance has been given out to State employees to not follow up 
22 

on certain pieces of information. That is very different, I think, in 

terms of what you see typically with payment error rates. 

You are seeing this is a really overt act on the part of the consultants and the States that obviously we have identified thus far, 

so there is a distinction there. 

Senator HEITKAMP. But it is fraud in establishing the review 

process, or it is fraud in putting more people on the program, on 

the SNAP program, who are unworthy, or we do not know whether 

they were unworthy or not? 

Ms. COFFEY. It is basically we cannot say—— 

Senator HEITKAMP. Right. 

Ms. COFFEY. —because the information was not accurately followed up upon. 

Senator HEITKAMP. Right. 

So I just want to clarify that what we are talking about when 

we talk about fraud and mismanagement is at the State level, 

where they are administering this program. This is not to imply 

that there is widespread applicant fraud, where the applicant— 

maybe somebody said, ‘‘Well, I think this person probably has 1099 

income that was not reported,’’ no follow-up on the 1099 income 

that was not reported. You do not know whether that is true or not 

because the States have not taken the steps that they should have 

taken to do the investigation and, in fact, allegedly, covered up the 

missteps that they had in terms of administering the program. Is 

that a fair characterization of what we are talking about? 

Ms. COFFEY. Yes, it is. 

Senator HEITKAMP. Okay. So I just want to make sure that—we 

take very seriously this program, and access to this program is essential. It is essential for people who live below the poverty line. 

It is essential for seniors. It is essential for our recovering and veterans who are coming back who are struggling with the transition 

back into civilian life. 

So we do not want a headline coming out of this saying there is 

widespread fraud, and it is really unfortunate that the States have 

not followed the proper procedure. I will bet if we had them in 

here, they might argue that they did and that they just want to 

put this behind us and that there was not a problem. 

The fact that the Department of Justice has chosen to not take 

this criminal, I think is an indication that we need to ratchet down 

the rhetoric on how we look at this. Do you think that is a fair 

characterization? 

Ms. COFFEY. I believe it is, and that is part of the reason we do 

not talk about the States that are currently under review in the 

investigation, because we do not want to unfairly accuse anyone or 

anything at this point. 

Senator HEITKAMP. I would argue that the Federal administration of these programs, not the Inspector General, but the Federal 

administration of the program not setting broad guidelines, not auditing and appropriately overseeing the State administration of 

these programs has led—and I see Mr. Harden nodding his head— 

has led to the confusion and has led to this problem. 

So I think there is opportunity for criticism all around. Is that 

a fair characterization? 

Mr. Harden? 
23 

Mr. HARDEN. Yes, it is. 

Senator HEITKAMP. Mr. Lipps, I know you are new to this, this 

business. I hope you are taking this all in because it is not going 

to be okay with me. As somebody who was a State official who 

worked with Federal programs, who may have gotten dinged on an 

audit—cannot remember if I did or not, but I know there are other 

ways to look at it. It is really important that we not throw out the 

baby with the bath water, not have a broad statement that there 

was widespread fraud, waste, and abuse in the SNAP program, but 

that we take the information that we have gotten today and change 

outcomes by being more directive and looking at solutions like Senator Gillibrand’s bill. 

So I look forward to working with this Committee as we move 

forward with the Farm Bill. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the extra 25 seconds. Senator 

Boozman did not use up all of his, so thank you, Senator Boozman 

for those 30 seconds. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. Anytime, Senator. Anytime. 

Senator HEITKAMP. Thanks. 

Chairman ROBERTS. I would say that there are some disturbing 

things with regards to fraud and the people involved and the 

States involved, and there is about three things. 

The integrity of the largest food assistance program that spends 

over $70 billion a year is unknown. That is not acceptable. 

The Office of Inspector General has found the quality control 

process is broken and in need of reform, and you are in the business of doing that. 

We have a number of States that have defrauded the Federal 

Government and are being investigated by the Department of Justice. They are gaming the system. 

Senator Boozman had an amendment that would have taken care 

of that to some degree, but in determining how many, that it is an 

open investigation. Ms. Coffey is correct in stating that and only 

that, but we do not know—we know two, but there are 42. That 

is no small number in terms of people who are gaming the system. 

The people who are gaming the systems—or the States who are 

gaming the system, there are people in charge of that, and now we 

are hearing primarily, ‘‘Well, it was the consultants, and maybe 

these States got together and figured out how to do that.’’ Maybe 

somebody in the Department knew that; maybe they did not. I 

think that is to be determined, but this is a very serious problem. 

I do not think it should be understated. 

Senator STABENOW. Mr. Chairman, if I might just jump in here 

with you as well to agree that this is a very serious problem, and 

to underscore what Senator Heitkamp and Senator Gillibrand were 

addressing on this, because in my line of questioning, you indicated 

if there is an overpayment, it is corrected, but it’s still counted as 

an error. If there is an underpayment corrected, it is still in error. 

What we have are States who want to get bonuses, who have not 

been reporting as they should be reporting, and so we know that 

corrections are made on underpayments, overpayments, other 

kinds of things. We need to do a better dive, deep dive. USDA 
24 

needs to have the staff to be able to do that and do what OIG is 

recommending. 

But I agree with you. We have got to look at the bonuses and 

incentives, and if the incentives are creating a situation where we 

are not getting accurate reporting on errors and what has been corrected and so on, then that is a big problem, and so thank you. 

Chairman ROBERTS. I would make one other point before we get 

to the second panel. In 2009, the improper payment rate—let me 

point out that is an improper payment rate. That is money that 

should not have been spent. 2009, that rate of a percent was 4.36. 

That is about $2.2 billion. 2010, 3.81, that is about $2.5 billion. 

2011, 3.8, that is about $2.7 billion; ’12, 3.42, that is $2.5 billion; 

2013, 3.2, that is $2.4 billion; and 2014, 3.6, $2.5 billion. Then, for 

some reason, we do not have any numbers from 2015 and 2016 because the method of determining the error rate was very questionable. But if it is 2 percent, it is about 1.4 billion for $70 billion. 

If it is 5 percent, that is 3.5 billion. If some of the States would 

have a 10 percent error, that may or may not be true, probably not, 

but that is $7 billion. Fifteen percent—I am not going to go there, 

but I will say it anyway, $10.5 billion. This is a major problem. 

Over the life of a Farm Bill, 6 years, 5 years, I mean, we are 

talking an awful lot of money, and that is not acceptable. That is 

the gentlest way I can put that. 

Let us go to Panel 2, please. Thank you, Panel 1. I appreciate 

your testimony. Welcome to the second panel. 

Thank you to our second panel of witnesses. First, we have Mr. 

Sam Schaeffer, the Center for Employment Opportunities. Mr. 

Schaeffer is the Executive Director and the Chief Executive Officer 

of the Center for Employment Opportunities, or CEO, in New York. 

Since 2009, he has worked to expand employment services provided 

by CEO to 18 cities in Oklahoma, Colorado, Ohio, Pennsylvania, 

California, and New York. Mr. Schaeffer previously served as the 

director of Economic Development for Senator Schumer. 

Welcome, and I look forward to your testimony, sir. 

Next, we have Mr. Bryan Parker of the Community Food Bank 

of Eastern Oklahoma. Mr. Parker joins us today from Tulsa on behalf of the Community Food Bank of Eastern Oklahoma. He is currently enrolled in the Lobeck Taylor Culinary Trade Program, 

which provides training and professional skills for the restaurant 

industry. Previously, Mr. Parker served in the Navy on the U.S.S. 

Midway. Thank you for your service. Semper Fi for all the marines 

that you helped—and ran a small business in Japan for more than 

20 years. Domo arigato. 

Thank you for being here today, and I look forward to your testimony. 

Mr. Jimmy Wright of Wright’s Market. I would like to welcome 

the witness from Alabama, Mr. Jimmy Wright. I know that the 

Senator from Alabama, Luther Strange, is extremely proud of the 

great work that you are doing in Alabama. We are all excited to 

hear from you today. Mr. Wright is the owner and president of 

Wright’s Market. Opelika? Did I nail that? Opelika, Alabama. 

Under his leadership, the store expanded from a small convenience 

store to a 22,000-square-foot supermarket. Mr. Wright is an active 

member of his community, serving as president of the Opelika 
25 

Community Development Corporation, on the board of East Alabama’s food bank. 

Welcome, sir, and I look forward to hearing your perspective. 

Fourth witness is Dr. Diane—‘‘Schanzenbach’’? 

Senator STABENOW. Schanzenbach. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Schanzenbach. 

Senator STABENOW. Yes. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Pardon me. She is our fourth witness. She 

is the director of the Institute for Policy Research at Northwestern 

University and—oh, I am sorry. You are to introduce her. 

Senator STABENOW. That is totally fine. Mr. Chairman, whatever 

you would like to do is totally fine. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Why don’t you go ahead. I apologize. 

Senator STABENOW. Thank you. Thank you very much. 

Chairman ROBERTS. It only took two taps on the shoulder for me 

to understand that you were going to introduce—— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator STABENOW. No, no, no. Either way is fine. 

Dr. Diane Schanzenbach, you are so important, both of us are introducing you, so we are very pleased that you are here. Director 

of the Institute for Policy Research and the Margaret Walker Alexander Professor in the School of Education, Social Policy, at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois. Dr. Schanzenbach is also 

research associate for the National Bureau of Economic Research. 

In this role, she studies policy aimed to improve the lives of children in poverty, with her recent work focus on tracing the impact 

of SNAP and early childhood education on children’s long-term outcomes. Dr. Schanzenbach was formerly the director of The Hamilton Project at the Brookings Institution, and received her PhD in 

economics from Princeton University. 

Welcome. 

Chairman ROBERTS. We are going to—— 

Senator STABENOW. One more person. 

Chairman ROBERTS. I understand that. One, two, three, four, 

five. 

Chairman ROBERTS. That is right. 

Chairman ROBERTS. I got this. 

Senator STABENOW. Okay. Good. I got your back here. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. I am going to recognize Senator Strange 

with regards to Mr. Wright, as I know you want to have an opportunity to say something on his behalf, sir. 

Senator STRANGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for 

being late. 

Have you had a chance to introduce him, or should I? 

Chairman ROBERTS. Well, I have already introduced him, but I 

think you could certainly add to that. 

Senator STRANGE. Well, I am glad to add to it because it is a rare 

opportunity to introduce not only a fellow Alabamian, but a friend 

to this panel. What Jimmy Wright is doing is creative. It is cuttingedge. It is going to benefit a lot of people. I am very proud to have 

visited Wright’s Supermarket. I know it well. It is a true place of 

Southern hospitality, but of creative thinking about how to serve 

a population that desperately needs to be served. I am proud that 
26 

Jimmy is my friend. I am glad he is here, and the whole area that 

he is involved in is important to me. 

When I was Attorney General, I had the opportunity to encourage our food banks with a challenge to lawyers across our State 

that I think has been particularly effective in restocking them during the summer months, so it is a team effort. Jimmy, I am glad 

you are here. I look forward to your testimony. 

Chairman ROBERTS. We thank the Senator. 

The last witness is Mr. Brian Riendeau. Did I get that right? I 

am close. All right. 

Senator McConnell was to introduce you, sir, but he cannot attend at this particular time. So you have served as the executive 

director at Dare to Care Food Bank in Louisville, Kentucky, since 

2009. You oversee the delivery of more than 19 million meals per 

year through a variety of programs at the food bank. Previously, 

you were the vice president of the Government and Community Affairs for YUM! Brands as well as legislative assistant for Senator 

McConnell for 6 years. 

Thank you for being here today, and I look forward to your input. 

Let us start it off with Mr. Schaeffer. 

STATEMENT OF SAM SCHAEFFER, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 

AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES, NEW YORK, NEW YORK 

Mr. SCHAEFFER. Chairman Roberts, Ranking Member Stabenow, 

and members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to 

testify about the important role SNAP and the SNAP Employment 

and Training Program play in the lives of millions of Americans. 

I am Sam Schaeffer, the executive director of the Center for Employment Opportunities, or CEO. CEO is a national nonprofit that 

this year will provide employment services to more than 5,000 men 

and women recently released from incarceration. 

In 18 cities across California, Colorado, Ohio, Oklahoma, New 

York, and Pennsylvania, individuals come to CEO sometimes just 

days after being released from prison. Although half have never 

had a job, they are all eager to work, eager to support themselves 

and their families. Food insecurity, however, hinders success. 

Forty-one percent of CEO participants report that since exiting 

prison, they have run out of food and lack the resources to secure 

more. 

Meet Tomas Caban. Tomas served 16 years for a crime for which 

he is deeply remorseful. He took advantage of every opportunity in 

prison, earning a BA in social studies from Bard College. The day 

after release, Tomas signed up for SNAP benefits, and he came to 

CEO to find a job. He was not comfortable taking what he remembers being called food stamps, but he would have gone hungry otherwise. Tomas spent 2 months at CEO, showing up every day for 

a transitional job, honing basic skills like team work and punctuality. 

Tomas wanted to be here today. The reason he could not come 

and the reason we could not get the smile in this photo off his face 

is that he is preparing to start his first job in more than 17 years. 

He will be working as a client advocate in a homeless shelter in 

Brooklyn. Tomas is relieved and proud. He has a way to support 
27 

himself. His time on SNAP is ending, and he has a job where he 

can give back. 

CEO supports 1,250 people a year like Tomas through the E&T 

program. As a third-party partner to multiple States, CEO will 

match every Federal dollar, as much as $2 million this year, representing a significant leveraging of resources. CEO has been proven to work through a randomized control trial, and to be clear, we 

are one of many evidence-based programs who could use E&T to 

help men and women on SNAP find economic security. 

While my written testimony has several detailed recommendations, I would like to highlight the following for the Committee. 

First, I urge the continued funding of a SNAP E&T program. Addressing food insecurity and employment through a single government intervention is aligned with what we know about hunger and 

poverty. Hungry people are incapable of focusing on the things we 

ask them to: making a career plan, showing up ready to work, 

being patient with coworkers and supervisors. Even motivated individuals cannot function well when their mind is occupied with 

when they will next eat. 

Second, maintain the flexibility that has been a hallmark of E&T 

from its inception. This flexibility allows States to design initiatives 

responsive to local needs. That said, we must balance this flexibility with increased focus on evaluation and rigorous data collection. Building on the 10 pilots authorized in the previous Farm 

Bill, the Committee should authorize an additional 4100 million for 

States that adopt activities proven to work through rigorous evaluation. We should build a collection of E&T-specific best practices 

to scale across the country. 

Finally, reconsider the 3-month limit on benefits for populations 

with barriers to employment, such as the formerly incarcerated. 

Men and women on parole, for instances, have competing obligations, like mandated drug treatment and parole check-ins, that 

make it difficult to meet required work thresholds. States should 

be allowed to apply for waivers for this population and others who 

have severe difficulty entering the labor market. 

In closing, SNAP E&T is essential for the survival of individual 

people and the health, security, and prosperity of our communities. 

Without SNAP, many other problems we are trying to solve promoting opportunity, keeping communities safe, and supporting 

strong families become harder, if not impossible. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Schaeffer can be found on page 

67 in the appendix.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. Thank you for your testimony and that excellent presentation in regards to that individual that is now a 

working part of our society. That is very helpful. 

Mr. Parker. 

STATEMENT OF BRYAN PARKER, COMMUNITY FOOD BANK OF 

EASTERN OKLAHOMA, TULSA, OKLAHOMA 

Mr. PARKER. Thank you. Thank you for allowing me to testify 

today. 
28 

My name is Bryan Parker. I am a 51-year-old father of two, a 

native of Tulsa, Oklahoma, and a recipient of food stamps—I am 

sorry—SNAP benefits. 

I am also a veteran. I served on board the U.S.S. Midway from 

1985 to 1988. I then lived in Japan for the next 20 years as the 

owner of a small chain of English cram schools. I was also a physical fitness trainer for MMA fighters and of professional wrestlers. 

In 2010, I moved back to Tulsa to be with the family and friends 

here, left behind my two daughters, who are both successful, my 

oldest being an architectural engineer and my youngest also a chef, 

both quite successful in moving forward with their lives as adults. 

I have been in the restaurant industry myself for my entire life. 

I have held every position from dishwasher to a general manager 

and still take great pride in being prepared to step into any one 

of those positions at any given time to help my crew get through 

a crunch. 

I have always been a hard worker, and I believe in it. I have always felt accomplished and successful. I have never worried about 

paying a bill, buying food, or wondering where I was going to get 

the next meal. That was a thought that never crossed my mind. 

But like many people do, I lost my job. This happened 2 or 3 

years ago, and it is rough. I felt down on my luck, depression. I 

battled anxiety, and every day, it seems to grow a little bit stronger. You lose hope after a while. Every day that goes by without 

landing a job, it gets rougher. 

So while trying to find work, I had to find ways to cut spending. 

It was not too long before I would no longer—because I could no 

longer afford to keep my car or my home or anything else, for that 

matter. With each interview that went without the promise of a 

new job, the struggles just kept becoming more and more complicated. 

When it seemed that nobody was willing to give an opportunity 

to a man, it is tough when you are 51 years old, for anybody, but 

when you are looking for work, it is daunting. When you find yourself trying to land these jobs, when you are working out of a cheap 

midtown motel, it gets even more difficult. 

SNAP during this time was a lifesaver. It provided nutrition. It 

gave me hope. A man can endure a lot of pain and suffering, but 

one thing that is almost impossible to ignore is hunger. 

[Pause.] 

Mr. PARKER. Excuse me. 

It is hard to live up to the—to your only responsibilities as a provider when you are not providing. I am very thankful for the SNAP 

program and for the SNAP benefits that I have received while trying to get back on my feet. 

I am happy to say that someone has finally decided to give me 

a chance, though, a second chance. I am currently enrolled in the 

Community Food Bank of Eastern Oklahoma’s Culinary Trade Program, and I am over halfway finished with the 16-week course. 

The Culinary Trade Program is free to qualified participants, and 

it helps people needing a second chance in life. 

I am currently working there 5 days a week for at least 7 hours 

a day. The program teaches professional cooking skills and life 

skills. The executive chef, Jeff Marlow, likes to remind us of his 
29 

AA&E. That stands for—it is his little motto. It stands for ‘‘attitude, attendance, and effort.’’ He likes to tell us that these are the 

keys to life. 

Well, when I graduate from the Culinary Trade Program, I will— 

upon successful completion of the program and the final examination, I will leave the course with a Food Handlers Manager’s Certificate and a set of chef knifes and some other little perks. All of 

the—this certification is also transferrable anywhere in the United 

States. It is a good program, and it is a program that has helped 

put me in a position to where I will be able to land any position 

I want, again, in the food industry. 

Ultimately, I would love to get my own food truck and further 

down the line move that into a more brick-and-mortar type of a 

scenario with a larger menu and a relaxing atmosphere. 

Immediately following this course, completion of the course, I will 

find myself in almost any professional kitchen I would like to work 

in, and that with hard work, really hard work, the training and my 

passion for cooking, my dream of ending my own business will become a reality. 

None of this would have been possible without the help of the 

food—the SNAP program and the Culinary Trade Program. I see 

every day how important SNAP is to many lives in the community. 

Everyone needs to eat, not just the employed or the wealthy or 

middle class. Everyone needs food, and food, it provides the fuel 

and the strength that we need. SNAP helps those in need, one step 

closer to self-sufficiency. 

Most do not even consider hunger to be an obstacle. It is hard 

to unless you have been there. If it were not for SNAP, I would 

probably—I would probably be homeless, and that is not easy to 

say. I am a proud man. Unless you have been there, you really 

would not—you would not understand it. All you can do is focus on 

when you might eat again or how you are going to come up with 

the 40 bucks it takes to stay in a cheap motel one more night. This 

is why SNAP is important to me and the people that need it. 

Honestly, I believe anyone working, middle-class individual, it is 

just one life-altering change or event, bad event away from being 

in the same situation. 

One day, I want to be able to pay it forward, and hopefully, I am 

doing that right now. 

Thank you for allowing me to tell my story today. I am blessed 

and fortunate to be here. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Parker can be found on page 60 

in the appendix.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. Bryan, from a marine to a Navy veteran— 

and I thank you for your service—well done. 

Mr. PARKER. Thank you, sir. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Mr. Wright. 

STATEMENT OF JIMMY WRIGHT, PRESIDENT, WRIGHT’S 

MARKET, INC., OPELIKA, ALABAMA 

Mr. WRIGHT. Good morning, Chairman Roberts, Ranking Member Stabenow, and distinguished members of the Agriculture Committee. 
30 

My name is Jimmy Wright, and I am the owner of Wright’s Market in Opelika, Alabama. It is an honor and a privilege to be before 

you this morning. 

I have been asked to testify today by the National Grocers Association on behalf of the retailers and wholesalers that comprise the 

independent sector of the supermarket industry. 

Wright’s Market is a small, family-owned, full-service supermarket. We have accepted SNAP as a form of tender essentially 

since the store opened, and we understand the needs of these customers extremely well, including many who are elderly. 

We began a shuttle service 3 years ago called ‘‘Wright 2 U’’ for 

our customers who are unable to get to the store due to a lack of 

transportation. We expanded this service last August when we 

launched an online delivery option that serves the communities of 

Opelika and Auburn. We have been very pleased with the success 

of this service. 

I am grateful this service has given us a unique opportunity to 

participate in the Online SNAP Purchasing Pilot Program, and we 

are confident in our ability to execute this model efficiently and effectively for SNAP customers. 

We have been willing to take the risk by investing time and capital into this initiative. We are still waiting for the green light from 

USDA. 

The supermarket industry is changing rapidly, and for small 

businesses like Wright’s Market to successfully innovate in food retail, we need the Government to keep up the pace with our ambitions. 

When the USDA transitioned from paper vouchers to EBT cards, 

our SNAP customers benefitted, and our store achieved new efficiencies. Implementing this pilot will be an important step in the 

right direction, much like the EBT transition. 

As one example of the possibilities this pilot can bring, we are 

planning to leverage our delivery to SNAP customers with other 

community services. For example, I am working on a program with 

East Alabama Medical Center to put physician assistants or RNs 

on our delivery vehicles to provide basic medical checkups or care 

to these customers, many who live in the rural areas that lack access to medical care and therefore often wind up in the ER with 

chronic medical issues. 

As the Committee examines other ways to improve Federal nutrition programs, I would suggest you start by ensuring a favorable 

regulatory climate for supermarkets. We understand there is a desire for some lawmakers to restrict food choices for SNAP recipients. 

While we support the goal of promoting healthier eating, the implementation of such an idea would be completely unworkable for 

the independent supermarket community. The added regulatory 

burden and costs coupled with an inevitable stigma that our SNAP 

customers would face may put some grocers out of business and, 

therefore, make food insecurity worse. 

Instead of Government mandates, we believe that programs such 

as FINI, HFFI, and SNAP–Ed have proven to be effective in expanding healthy food access and incentivizing healthy food pur-
31 

chases. For this reason, we support their reauthorization in the 

next Farm Bill. 

To encourage more small businesses growth in our industry, we 

also recommend a more efficient process for the approval of SNAP 

applications for small retailers in good standing with the program. 

We appreciate the progress that FNS has made in making the 

process more efficient for larger store groups, and we encourage 

them to expand this to other retailers in good standing. 

Not too long ago, I helped a nonprofit ministry in Atlanta open 

a small store named Carver Market in an Atlanta food desert, and 

it took nearly 3 months to get the SNAP license approval from 

USDA. Delays for store openings in food-insecure areas is frustrating, and we would appreciate any potential improvements to 

the process. 

The SNAP program, in my opinion, is one of the most important 

and efficient programs our nation offers. In our business, it creates 

jobs. In our community, it helps those in need. 

Finally, NGA commends USDA and the particular team at FNS 

for their tireless work to respond to the back-to-back disasters 

caused by Hurricanes Harvey and Irma. Throughout both disasters, 

the Department has been proactive, and it has been in communication with the retail food industry and State agencies. We sincerely 

appreciate the hard work that has been done and continues to be 

done by the FNS staff. 

Thank you for your time. I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wright can be found on page 93 

in the appendix.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. Dr. Schanzenbach. 

STATEMENT OF DIANE SCHANZENBACH, Ph.D., DIRECTOR AND 

MARGARET WALKER ALEXANDER PROFESSOR, INSTITUTE 

FOR POLICY RESEARCH AT NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY, 

EVANSTON, ILLINOIS 

Ms. SCHANZENBACH. Thank you, Chairman Roberts, Ranking 

Member Stabenow, and members of the Committee. Thanks for the 

opportunity to appear before you today. 

My name is Diane Schanzenbach, and I am the director of the 

Institute for Policy Research and a professor at Northwestern University. 

SNAP is a highly efficient and effective program. It kept 8.4 million people out of poverty in 2014, including almost 4 million children. It is sufficiently targeted to families who need the benefits 

the most. It reduces the likelihood that families have trouble affording food and serves as an automatic fiscal stabilizer in times 

of economic downturns. 

A key reason for SNAP’s success is that it relies on the private 

sector to provide efficient access to food through grocery stores and 

other retail outlets. The program’s reliance on the free-market system has been a critical feature of SNAP since its beginning. 

SNAP serves a diverse caseload. The overwhelming of individuals 

who participate, nearly 80 percent of participants are children, the 

elderly, disabled, or working adults. The employment rate among 

SNAP households has consistently climbed over the past two dec-
32 

ades, and there is no evidence that SNAP has a sizeable negative 

impact on employment rates. 

SNAP benefits the wider economy by providing an effective stimulus during difficult economic times. By design, SNAP can very 

quickly adapt to economic downturns. As more households become 

eligible for the program, for example, due to job loss, they can be 

quickly enrolled with total program outlays automatically increasing along with need. 

SNAP payments and caseloads increased in the wake of the 

Great Recession but have been falling since their peak at the end 

of 2012, with the Congressional Budget Office predicting further 

declines in coming years in response to the strengthening economy. 

SNAP recipients quickly spend the benefits providing a rapid fiscal stimulus to the local economy, including the retail, wholesale, 

and transportation systems to deliver the foods purchased. The 

USDA estimates that every $5 in new SNAP benefits generates as 

much as $9 in additional economic activity. 

Alan Blinder and Mark Zandi have found that Congress’ authorization of the temporary SNAP increase during the Great Recession 

had a larger fiscal stimulus impact than did any other potential 

spending increase or tax cut policy. 

SNAP’s entitlement structure, therefore, is one of its greatest 

strengths. Block granting or otherwise capping the program would 

fundamentally undermine its timely stabilizing impact on the 

macro-economy. 

SNAP also enables families to buy nutritious foods that they otherwise could not afford, such as vegetables and healthy proteins, 

and it reduces food insecurity. 

Recent research that I have conducted documented that SNAP is 

a very good investment that has lasting positive impacts on children. Those who had access to the SNAP program during childhood 

were 18 percentage points more likely to graduate from high 

school, and they grew up to be healthier. Women, in particular, 

were more likely to become economic self-sufficient adults due to 

access to SNAP during childhood. In other words, SNAP is not a 

welfare trap, but instead, we should think of it as an investment 

in children. 

In terms of potential reforms to SNAP, while SNAP is effective, 

it would be even more effective if the benefit were better aligned 

with families’ needs. Evidence suggests that modest increases in 

SNAP benefits would improve dietary quality and reduce food insecurity. 

SNAP could also broadly adopt market-based policies to encourage participants to consume a healthier diet. Market-based policies 

that produce rebates for purchase of healthy foods or bonus dollars 

for use at farmers markets and grocery stores would increase 

healthy food consumption among SNAP recipients. 

The Committee could also serve children in nutritional need better by measuring and establishing performance metrics for crossenrollment of eligible SNAP participants into WIC, similar to the 

performance metrics for the National School Lunch Program. Such 

a move would turn needed attention to serving this important and 

vulnerable group. 
33 

Strengthening SNAP is a smart public investment that will improve both public health and economic growth. 

Thank you, and I look forward to answering any questions that 

you have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Schanzenbach can be found on 

page 83 in the appendix.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. Thank you, Doctor. 

Mr. Riendeau. 

STATEMENT OF BRIAN RIENDEAU, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

DARE TO CARE FOOD BANK, LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY 

Mr. RIENDEAU. Chairman Roberts, Ranking Member Stabenow, 

and members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me here 

today. 

I am Brian Riendeau, executive director of the Dare to Care Food 

Bank in Louisville, Kentucky, and I am honored to represent not 

only my food bank but Feeding America’s network of 200 food 

banks that serve more than 46 million people in need. 

Our collective vision is a hunger-free America, a country where 

everyone has enough to eat at all times to live an active and 

healthy life. 

Dare to Care works with more than 300 agencies across 13 counties in Kentucky and Indiana. Our service area spans nearly 4,000 

square miles and includes urban, suburban, and rural counties. 

Now, I know that to make sound decisions regarding funding of 

Federal nutrition programs, you need sound data, and I have submitted extensive written testimony that will, hopefully, supply 

some of that. 

In my remarks, however, I would like to provide two testimonials 

to create a larger context for this discussion. After all, behind each 

piece of data is a real person. 

So, first, please meet Ray, a client in Kentucky who receives 

TEFAP. In Ray’s words, ‘‘I am a 73-year-old veteran, military veteran. I was diagnosed with stage IV cancer, was unable to work, 

had a sick wife and sister to care for. My local food pantry signed 

me up for the monthly TEFAP program, and it has helped me 

through this tough past by supplementing our other sources of 

food, so we have enough to eat. I cannot begin to thank those who 

made this program possible. 

Second, meet Sarah, director of one of our partner agencies. In 

Sarah’s words, ‘‘At our food pantry, we have regular volunteers 

who get to know the clients we serve. They hear their stories of 

scarcity and insecurity. They hear the woman who was so grateful 

for her TEFAP box because she had to pay extra for medicine that 

month. They know the grandparents who are raising their grandchildren and receive no additional assistance. One such family did 

not leave the parking lot after getting their box. They ate it immediately in the car. The TEFAP food helps us stabilize our clients’ 

lives.’’ 

So throughout this renewal process, let us always remember the 

real people—there are real people whose lives may be impacted by 

the decisions we make here. 
34 

Last year, Dare to Care Food Bank distributed over 19 million 

meals to 134,000 struggling individuals. That includes 7.2 million 

pounds of fresh produce and 3.8 million pounds of TEFAP product. 

TEFAP and all the Federal nutrition programs are critical to our 

success. In fact, TEFAP represents 70 percent of the food that we 

distribute. We contribute TEFAP with food that is donated as well 

as food that we purchase to meet the needs we see in Kentuckiana. 

The highly nutritious products we receive through TEFAP greatly increased our overall nutritional mix of our food contributing to 

the health of our clients. 

TEFAP is particularly important among Federal nutrition programs because, in my service area, nearly 50 percent of our foodinsecure neighbors have incomes too high to qualify for SNAP. The 

food Dare to Care provides, including TEFAP, is often all that is 

available to offset hunger. 

Yes, unemployment is down, but food insecurity remains unacceptably high, and I urge the Committee to ensure continued 

strong funding of all the Federal nutrition programs, particularly 

TEFAP, in the upcoming bill. 

Dare to Care Food Bank also benefits by the Kentucky Farms to 

Food Banks Program. This initiative increases access to healthy 

food for struggling Kentuckians by distributing surplus and No. 2- 

grade produce which is fresh and edible but not saleable because 

of minor blemishes or size discrepancies. With State and private 

funds, the Kentucky Association of Food Banks helps farmers cover 

their costs to pick, package, and deliver their unmarketable 

produce to food banks. 

Through the leadership and the support of our Kentucky Ag 

Commissioner, Ryan Quarles, this program provides crucial support to farmers, reduces food waste, and feeds the hungry. It is 

something that other States have implemented and that I would 

urge the Committee to consider scaling it nationwide. 

In conclusion, I firmly believe that hunger is solvable, and my 

food bank colleagues and I are dedicated to the task and will continue to work together with you and private stakeholders to 

achieve our vision of a hunger-free America. 

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Riendeau can be found on page 

62 in the appendix.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. Our thanks to Panel 2, and thank you for 

taking the time to join us today and to share your insight. We really appreciate that. 

Mr. Schaeffer, leading up the Farm Bill, a lot of discussion of 

SNAP has revolved around the concept of work. Unfortunately, we 

do not yet have the results of the work pilots from the last Farm 

Bill, and the question remains on how best to facilitate SNAP’s 

participants return to self-sufficiency. 

Your testimony referenced a personal case and made several recommendations to improve the employment and training authorities. 

Conversely, what pitfalls should the Committee avoid? 

Mr. SCHAEFFER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

While there certainly are pitfalls for the Committee and for the 

next Farm Bill to avoid, I would begin by emphasizing that the 
35 

previous Farm Bill and this Committee’s work, in particular, has 

positioned the work requirements under SNAP very well, and highlighting those 10 pilots operating now across the country is going 

to help us build an evidence base of what is effective. 

I would further add that USDA’s investments in their SNAP to 

Skills initiatives are giving the right technical assistance to States 

to design more effective programs also to third-party partners, like 

CEOs. So I think we are on good footing. Certainly, as we build 

this knowledge base and operational efficiencies, there are, I think, 

three pitfalls I think we should be mindful of avoiding. 

One is that for E&T programs, there is not a one-size-fits-all 

model. As has been referenced numerous times in this hearing this 

morning, the recipients of SNAP benefits, the participants in SNAP 

E&T programs represent a tremendously diverse group of Americans, from folks like Mr. Parker to individuals coming home from 

prison, and we need to be mindful that for each of these groups, 

a different set of job and training activities would be more appropriate. Some will need less intensive activities; some will need 

more intensive activities. Resisting the urge to sort of funnel everyone through one path will be incredibly important. We need to aim 

to find the right program for the right person at the right time. 

I would further emphasize that job retention is critical. From any 

individuals who participate in CEO’s programs, it will be their first 

ever job. Finding that job is a challenge. Keeping that job can be 

just as hard. So ensuring that the E&T program allows for the intensive investments to help people manage employment over the 

long term to gain greater skills to continue to move up, up the economic ladder, is a key point. 

Then, finally the SNAP program, the $507 million are spent as 

part of the E&T portion of that program, $200 million—$199 million, to be specific, actually comes from a match program in which 

States, philanthropy, private donors help leverage a correlative 

amount of Federal dollars. While I think that represents a tremendous leveraging ability, I would be mindful that certain communities and certain third-party providers across the country might 

not have the same access to those economic means. So I think a 

pitfall to avoid would be ensuring that every community can take 

place in this really important program. 

Chairman ROBERTS. I thank you for that. 

Mr. Parker, thank you for your service to this country. 

What made you decide to enroll specifically in the Culinary 

Trade Program? 

Mr. PARKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is—it was easy. It 

was a passion for food. I think my mom had something to do with 

that when she taught me how to scramble and egg, but it started 

as a child. It has continued through my adult life. It is just something I love to do. 

This particular course came to me through my participation with 

the Barracks Program, and they pointed it out to me and got me 

set in the right direction. To have an opportunity to work with a 

great team of chefs is—it is something that is worth paying for, 

and I am fortunate enough to be able to go there and, frankly, be— 

I get a stipend for going there. They are almost paying me. So it 
36 

is an opportunity to go there and learn from great chefs and one 

that you do not pass up. 

Chairman ROBERTS. As you continue your success with your food 

truck there in Tulsa, what are you going to offer the good folks? 

Mr. PARKER. Oh, at the food bank, we offer quality, a quality 

product on a daily basis. 

I did not anticipate walking into—seeing a walk-in full of highquality proteins. We have got ribeye steaks. We have got anything 

you want, and it goes out to people who need it. So we have got 

quality ingredients, and we put it out on a daily basis with pride. 

It means a lot to me. 

I thought that I was going to be walking into a bunch of flour 

and sugar and dried goods, and that is not the case at all. It is a 

pleasure to be there, and I am learning from a lot of good people. 

Chairman ROBERTS. But the question I have for you, sir, you said 

you had ambition to get your own food truck. 

Mr. PARKER. Yes, sir. 

Chairman ROBERTS. I just want to know what you are going to 

serve the good folks in Tulsa and Kansas. 

Mr. PARKER. Oh, okay. Thank you. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Kansas is pretty close. If you get something 

pretty good, I will come down. 

Mr. PARKER. All right. Well, yes. Anywhere from burgers to 

tacos. I have to wait until I get there to figure it all out, but I am 

thinking about probably burgers or tacos. 

Senator STABENOW. All right. 

Mr. PARKER. You are more than welcome, Mr. Chairman. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. It would be Bryan’s—maybe Bryan’s Burgers on the side of the truck. 

Mr. PARKER. All right. That is what we are going with. 

Senator STABENOW. That is good. That is good. 

Mr. PARKER. Done. 

Chairman ROBERTS. I offer that at no cost, of course. 

Mr. PARKER. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. Mr. Wright, like many grocers in rural communities, your store faces a lot of challenges related to the supply 

chain or serving a smaller customer base. 

SNAP-authorized retailers, as you have indicated in your statement, must also comply with additional rules and regs that add a 

layer of administrative burden, to say the least, and I share your 

concern that some would like to create additional burdens under 

the guise of—the well-intended guise of promoting nutrition by dictating what people should eat and forcing cashiers to be the food 

police. We just do not need that. 

Are there any other regulatory burdens that we should seek to 

address or avoid? 

Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

I think that that is certainly a concern for our industry and how 

we would handle that. 

Again, back to my testimony, just the ability, if we decide to 

grow and in good standing with the USDA, that we would be able 

to obtain a license and move very quickly on that, and we would 
37 

also ask that a fast track, so to speak, would be set up for retailers 

in good standing and also people who are committed to serve the 

food deserts of America. Those would really help us. 

Our big concern that we see looming out there right now is the 

food choice, and any other things that would have to do with the 

processing of the program that would add cost to it, that unfortunately would force us to have to pass those costs on to our customer, thus, reducing the amount of buying power they would 

have. 

Chairman ROBERTS. I appreciate that. 

Mr. Riendeau, you mentioned the importance of public support to 

your food bank’s operation, but you depend on private support as 

well. Can you give us what percentage of food does your food bank 

receive from TEFAP versus private donations? 

Mr. RIENDEAU. Certainly. We—Dare to Care, about 17 percent of 

the food receive comes from the TEFAP program. We also receive 

food from donations from national donors, retailers, local retailers, 

and increasingly, we find ourselves purchasing more food. So, 

today, almost 10 percent of the food that we acquire and distribute 

is purchased food. 

Chairman ROBERTS. I understand you all expend some of your 

own funds for storage and distribution of TEFAP commodities. Can 

you give us what percentage of those costs do the TEFAP administrative funds cover and what percent that you have to chip in? 

Mr. RIENDEAU. Yes, absolutely. That is a great question. 

So the TEFAP storage and distribution reimbursement covers 

about 23 percent of the cost to Dare to Care Food Bank to acquire, 

store, and distribute TEFAP products. So, clearly, it is not covering 

the majority of those costs, and frankly we would love to discuss 

or love to see the Committee consider increasing storage and distribution allocations. It would free up funding that we could then 

allocate towards other programs in feeding—acquiring healthy, nutritious food and feeding more people. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Well, we would both—all of us on the Committee, would like to encourage some of that at the national level. 

Let me point out what you hear time and time and time again. 

That we have some very tough spending decisions as we head into 

this Farm Bill. 

Are there aspects of the Farms to Food Banks that are low or 

no cost? 

Mr. RIENDEAU. Well, let me say, first of all, I certainly understand and sympathize with the tough challenges facing you and the 

Committee. 

On the Farms to Foods Banks Program, I would love to—I would 

welcome the opportunity to sit with you and your staff and talk 

more about that program and how it might be leveraged at the 

Federal level. 

I know in Kentucky, it is a jointly funded program. The State 

kicks in about 600,000, and taxpayers have an opportunity to donate a portion of their return on the tax check-off, and then there 

is also a significant private-sector funding. So most aspects of the 

program do require costs. 

In Kentucky, we found a wonderful private-public partnership 

that works and would love to see if that could be replicated here. 
38 

Chairman ROBERTS. Senator Stabenow? 

Senator STABENOW. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and 

thank you to each of you for the excellent panel. 

I first want to say to Mr. Parker, thank you for paying it forward 

on behalf of many people that are not able to be here today and 

for talking about how important it is that our country has your 

back when someone has the need for temporary assistance, so 

thank you. 

By the way, we are roaring back in Detroit with hundreds of new 

restaurants being opened, as well as food trucks. So I would suggest that you ought to come on up. We would love to have you join 

us in this great new effort that is happening. 

I was just meeting the other day with folks opening restaurants 

saying they are desperately in need of chefs and culinary help—so 

that is just a plug for Detroit. 

Let me start, Dr. Schanzenbach, talking about the fact that 

SNAP enrollment does go up and down. That is what it is supposed 

to do, and the good news is that the costs are going down, the 

spending is going down because we are seeing the economy getting 

better. The Budget Office says we are going to save about $80 billion over the next 10 years. 

Can you tell us a little bit more about what your research shows 

about participation and why it is important that SNAP is able to 

shrink as well as grow when there is need? 

Ms. SCHANZENBACH. Absolutely. The SNAP program was one of 

our most important programs during the great recession. I mean, 

we, of course, all remember that we saw labor market devastation 

on a scale not seen since the Great Recession—Great Depression, 

actually. 

In fact, our calculations at the Brookings Institution suggested 

that the economy just in July recovered back to the jobs numbers 

that we had at the beginning of that, so it was a very long, deep 

recession. 

You will recall that, a lot of times, it is the people who are on 

SNAP who will be the first to lose their jobs and last to get them 

back. So what the research has found is that every dollar that got 

spent on a SNAP program really stimulated the local economy because people spend those very quickly, they spend them at local 

grocery stores, helps families make sure that their kids are able to 

go to school and learn. I mean, the program has many, many terrific strengths. 

Senator STABENOW. Great. Thank you so much. 

Mr. Schaeffer, you clearly run a very impressive program and appreciate your being here today. 

Can you talk a little bit more about why voluntary training and 

support programs are more effective in connecting SNAP recipients 

to employment than time restrictions or more punitive actions? 

Mr. SCHAEFFER. Thank you for the kind words, Ranking Member 

Stabenow, and yes, happy to address that question. 

CEO participants, as I mentioned, will come into a program like 

ours, weeks, sometimes just days after being released from prison, 

and it is an incredibly volatile time in their lives. The challenges 

that they face are tremendous, from reconnecting with family to 
39 

finding a safe, secure, affordable place to live, to accessing the substance abuse treatment that so many will need. 

Putting incredibly hard and tight work requirements on those individuals, given those completing obligations, sometimes is just not 

realistic for individuals. 

We also find that with many populations who access SNAP and 

SNAP E&T benefits, that point of agency is critical. They have to 

be able to choose the program, to enroll in the program that is 

going to best fit their needs, their interests, and allow them to be 

successful. 

But we found in our program and criminal justice literature generally, if you mandate someone into a program, you are much less 

likely to have long-term success. It certainly is critical to provide 

that array of programing to give folks the opportunity and the appropriate amount of time to find food and economic security. 

Senator STABENOW. Thank you. 

So you are saying Government mandates, in this case, are not as 

effective as voluntary programs. 

Mr. SCHAEFFER. Correct. 

Senator STABENOW. So thank you. 

Mr. Wright, I am so impressed with what you have been doing 

with Wright’s Market and also very impressed that you are talking 

about combining that with health in terms of reaching out to people. Obviously, the connection between nutrition and health outcomes is so important. I really appreciate the fact that you are 

really leaning into that effort. 

Mr. WRIGHT. Thank you. 

Senator STABENOW. Could you talk a little bit more about the 

economic impacts that the incentive programs have for independent 

grocers like yours? 

Mr. WRIGHT. Well, certainly, in our business, SNAP is almost 40 

percent of our retail sales. 

Senator STABENOW. Wow. 

Mr. WRIGHT. So it certainly creates jobs, and it is very helpful 

to us from the economic standpoint. 

Some of the other things that the SNAP program brings to the 

table is just reaching—we have seen examples already of reaching 

people that are desperately in need, so there certainly is a business 

side of that, but by the same time, just the other benefits for our 

community, we still see a lot of elderly—and people. 

But it is an economic driver. I saw some statistics in 2015. For 

every $1 SNAP benefits, I think $1.80 was returned back, and I 

think that a colleague here referred to $9. So it is certainly an economic generator. It is something that is good for our industry and 

I think a very efficient program the Government does to get that 

kind of return back on it. 

Senator STABENOW. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Senator Boozman. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

In Arkansas, one in four children struggles with hunger, yet not 

all eligible children are receiving access to their nutrition programs 

that they need. 

Dr. Schanzenbach—did I get that right? 
40 

Ms. SCHANZENBACH. You did. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Good. You are like me. You probably answer 

to anything. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOOZMAN. Your research demonstrated clear connections 

between children who have access to SNAP and educational outcomes. Do you see connections between the SNAP and the school 

meals, and how is the interaction of these programs working on the 

ground? 

Ms. SCHANZENBACH. Yes. As I mentioned in my testimony, I 

think the performance standards that you all put in last time relating to SNAP and the National School Lunch Program have done a 

tremendous amount of good, making sure that children have access 

to both sets of programs. I would really encourage you to consider 

doing the same with WIC this time because participation in WIC 

is actually very low. While 85 percent of infants who are eligible 

participate in WIC, that falls down to about 30 percent by age 4. 

I think establishing some performance standards there would really help these vulnerable children. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Very good. 

Mr. Wright, can you expand on the online SNAP pilot program 

that your grocery store is participating in? How do you think it can 

be effective to be able to fight hunger in rural food deserts likes 

ones that we have in Arkansas and I know in Alabama? 

Mr. WRIGHT. Again, we are very pleased and honored to be a 

part of the pilot program. 

You know, when people typically think of a food desert, they 

think of in the urban area of Philadelphia, Chicago, or somewhere 

like that. Alabama, much like Arkansas, the challenges that we 

have are in our rural areas, and unfortunately, they are in areas 

that do not have the population density to support a full-size brickand-mortar supermarket. 

So we believe using e-commerce and online delivery, we can 

reach into these areas and bring a full variety of products, especially fresh produce and fresh meat to these customers, that would 

not be accessible to them as they are today. 

Again, partnered with a health care component, which is another 

area that is missed in these rural communities, we feel like we 

have got a great model that can make a difference nutritionally 

and in health care also. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Very good. 

Mr. Wright, Mr. Riendeau, you both are serving rural communities that have food access issues, again, the deserts. What are 

some of the major barriers to food access, and how are these being 

solved from the local level? Sometimes it is difficult to push things 

out at the Federal level. 

Arkansas is very different than Massachusetts or whatever. 

Where we get into trouble is the one-size-fits-all. 

Mr. RIENDEAU. Right, yes, serving rural areas in our world is 

much—presents unique challenges. There are distances traveled, 

which we do not see in urban areas. There is the lack of good partners or just fewer partners that we can work with to distribute 

food, and then there is for particularly in the case of children, kids 
41 

do not congregate in rural areas like they congregate in urban 

areas. 

I was here 2 years ago to talk about the Summer Food Service 

Program and the importance of injecting flexibility into that program to allow States like yours and my rural counties to adapt the 

program to meet the unique challenges in those communities, and 

some work was—some progress was made there. I think anything 

that the Committee can do to encourage that flexibility to allow 

food banks like mind to adopt programs that fit the unique circumstances we see are certainly worthwhile. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Right. Very good. I know the congregant feeding issues and all those things really are very, very important, and 

that is just something that we have to deal with and provide some 

flexibility. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator STRANGE. Oh, I am sorry. Senator Brown. 

Senator BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROBERTS. I apologize. 

Senator BROWN. Sorry, Luther. Sorry about that. 

He is taller. You did not see me. You saw him. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Well, you sneaked in on my right there. 

Senator BROWN. Okay. Fair enough. 

First, I am sorry. We have been doing tax reform on Finance 

Committee and on banking issues with CFIUS, and I apologize for 

not being here. 

Mr. Parker, I have heard already a recounting of your story, and 

thank you for sharing it and your genuineness, and I appreciate 

the Chairman’s response to it. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Wright, thank you for what you do in Alabama. We have a 

store. My wife and I live in the City of Cleveland. My ZIP Code 

has had more foreclosures, 44105, 10 years ago, had more foreclosures in my ZIP Code than any ZIP Code in America that year. 

We have stores not too different from yours, one particularly that 

serves what people called ‘‘food desert,’’ and thank you when you 

step up as a small businessperson like that, so to both of you. 

Dr. Schanzenbach, if I could direct a question to you. Last week 

I met with the Mid-Ohio Foodbank in Columbus and several hospitals, CEOs from Central Ohio. They are partnering to tackle hunger head-on and had one message for me how food and nutrition 

are so linked to health outcomes. 

We know the ZIP Code you come from, whether it is in Appalachia, Ohio, or inner city, Dayton, it matters a whole lot to your 

life expectancy and so much else. 

These CEOs told me the clear benefit they see in safety-net programs like SNAP. Good nutrition leads to patients that can recover 

more quickly. Patients who have access to food are better positioned, as you said well in this Committee already, to avoid chronic 

health issues. As one executive said, ‘‘We can pay now or pay 

later.’’ 

Two questions. Your research shows links between SNAP and 

our broader work to address poverty in this country, including improvements in health care and educational outcomes. Are there im-
42 

provements we make specifically to SNAP that would accelerate 

these gains? 

Ms. SCHANZENBACH. You know, in my opinion, the best improvements we could make, I guess, are twofold. One is I think the benefits right now are very meager, about $4.50 per person per day. I 

think the evidence suggest that a slightly larger benefit would improve the effectiveness of the program all the more, allow people 

to escape food insecurity, buy healthier foods, and so on. 

The second would be really expanding those market-based incentives to buy healthier food, whether that is a Double-Up food buck 

program or other, other programs like that. 

Senator BROWN. Well, talk in more detail about if the—first of 

all, I think Americans do not really know. We used the term ‘‘food 

stamps’’ for years. That term was seen by far too many people in 

a negative light. I think that is one reason it is now called SNAP, 

but it is still seen that way. Surely, people think the benefits are 

much greater than they are. People always have a story about 

somebody that they judged standing in line next to them or whatever. Sometimes it is a bit about race. Often it is not. It is just 

whatever, when taxpayers see others up close, the stories are told, 

as you know. 

But talk through what—having access to food, having a little bit 

more in SNAP, what it would mean for families trying to move out 

of poverty. Put us in a position. I mean, we do not—few of us, certainly all of us up here—as Pope Francis exhorted his parish 

priest, ‘‘Go out and smell like the flock,’’ and we do not do a whole 

lot of that here. We do not really see how—we do not hear up close 

the stories of Mr. Parker, and we do not experience it nearly often 

enough. So talk that through, if you would. 

Ms. SCHANZENBACH. Sure. So there is good research evidence 

that additional—modest increases and benefit levels will allow people to buy healthier food, right? So those first dollars that you 

have, especially if you are facing a lot of scarcity, you are going to 

buy high-calorie, dense foods, but then as you have more money, 

you can have a more varied diet, et cetera. 

So the evidence is that modest increase in food stamp—SNAP 

benefits would increase the purchase of vegetables, greens, highquality proteins. In fact, it would actually probably reduce the likelihood that people buy fast food. So people buy healthier foods with 

more money. 

Senator BROWN. Is there evidence that the programs we have 

done and experimented with and done sort of with fits and starts 

to allow food stamps to be used—or SNAP to be used for—at farmers markets, buying fruits and vegetables, increasing the value— 

are those working? In the limited way they have been tried, are 

those working? 

Ms. SCHANZENBACH. They sure seem to be, right? 

So, as an economist, I will tell you that anytime you change the 

relative price of something, if you reduce the relative price of vegetables and fruits, people will buy more of them, and, indeed, that 

is what the research is showing based on both the Healthy Incentives Pilot that was conducted in Massachusetts and in these Double-Up programs. 

Senator BROWN. Thank you. 
43 

I thank—I compliment the Chairman on—this Committee has 

worked on the school breakfast, school lunch program, and worked 

with a number of school cafeteria leaders in my State, in Cincinnati, in Marion especially, and worked to get young people exposed, particularly if they are not getting it at home, to more fruits 

and vegetables, so that can have some impact on lifelong eating 

habits. We know what that means for their life expectancy and 

their healthier lives. 

So thanks to all five of you on the panel. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator STRANGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the 

panelists for being here. This is very informative to me. 

Jimmy, thank you for being here to talk about your great initiatives. A couple things you did not mention that I just want the 

Committee to be aware of, you mentioned partnering with the East 

Alabama Medical Center to address those issues, but also you work 

with the Hunger Solutions Institute at Auburn and our Cooperative Extension Service, brings those resources to those needed, constituents, to help them make better choices about their food selections and so forth. So I want to compliment you on that. 

Also, I appreciate the chairman asking questions about—and 

your raising them in your testimony about the processing time, 

some of the regulatory burdens that you face. It sounds to me that 

is more of a regulatory issues than it is a legislative issue, but we 

will be open to any suggestions you have there. 

I would like to ask you first about—I am so proud that you are 

participating in this pilot brown, but as a small retailer addressing 

a unique problem, I wish you would address the challenges that 

you face or explain opportunities, maybe, in dealing with other participants like the larger ones, Amazons, Walmarts of the world. 

How do you see that working? How do you differentiate yourself 

and your challenges from them? 

Mr. WRIGHT. Well, thank you, Senator Strange. 

I have always looked at business, my business, two ways. I 

looked at it on the transactional side and on the relational side, 

and I think that is how most independent grocers in America do 

that. 

Our point of difference is, as independents, we are anchored in 

our communities. We are going to stay here, good times and bad. 

Some of our competitors, when it gets tough, they just go and 

leave. 

As far the online pilot is considered, on a transactional side, it 

is just getting a package from A to B, and that is fine. We have 

to compete in that space, and we certainly understand that. That 

is part of our business. 

The relational side is more of the things we are interested in and 

knowing the people that we serve and knowing them on a personal 

basis, and that is why we want to add the component of health 

care, looking at a much more holistic model of that, love that these 

relationships that we could build would run—would carry over in 

some of the programs that you have heard from today. 

But, essentially, my business model and the business model for 

independent grocers from coast to coast is that we are anchored in 

our communities, and whether it is in store, whether it is online, 
44 

we are going to make the relationships personal in our communities and be there to serve. 

Senator STRANGE. I love that approach, that holistic approach. 

Mr. Chairman, he has an assistant. He is raising Emily, who is 

13, I think. She showed me around the store, so this is a 

generational thing, and it is very effective. 

You might in the remaining time tell us a little bit about the delivery route you implemented because it is an important service to 

the community, people that cannot get to your great facility, and 

how that is—what feedback you have gotten, any advice you might 

offer to other retailers in your situation that are considering doing 

that. 

Mr. WRIGHT. Thank you. 

Two components to that. We started about 3 years ago, as we 

said in the opening statement, with our Wright 2 U shuttle service. 

Back to some of the conversations we have already had, transportation is still a huge issue, even in a community that is a pretty 

decent size. We still see a lot of elderly people that just have a 

tough time getting to the grocery story. 

So we started out having these people call our store. We come 

pick them up. We take them to the store and let them shop, and 

we take them back home. There is no charge to that. We see a lot 

of seniors from that program. 

Now as we roll into the e-commerce component of this, we see 

the same way. We already see in our initial launch, a lot of seniors 

out there that we are reaching now that just cannot get out to the 

store. Even if they wanted to ride in our shuttle, they are just not 

physically able to do that, so we see the ability to do that. 

Certainly, as we reach into the rural areas—there are four communities that surround Opelika, Alabama, that are anywhere from 

15 to 30 miles that do not have a full-service grocery store. Their 

fresh food options are extremely limited, and this is a way that we 

see building a route to be able to go out and give people access to 

the grocery store without the grocery store actually being there. 

Senator STRANGE. Well, I want to compliment the panelists. As 

a former Attorney General, I appreciate the reentry efforts that you 

are making. That is a very significant component of the criminal 

justice system, and that work is very important. 

Mr. Parker, congratulations on your success, and the food banks 

obviously are a critical part of the chain of support, and I appreciate our economist validating some of the things we think are 

going on. So I thank the panelists, and thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROBERTS. We thank you, Senator. 

Senator Donnelly is here. 

Senator DONNELLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank the panel and particularly to Mr. Parker for 

being here to testify before the Committee. Thanks for your service 

to our country. We are very, very grateful to you for that and for 

taking the time to be here to share your story—and to the entire 

panel. 

To Mr. Wright, I will tell you that some of my dear friends back 

home are independent grocers who work hard every day to make 

sure that not only do they run good shops, but that folks in our 

community have a decent meal in front of them, and so we are 
45 

grateful for your American ingenuity and entrepreneurship and 

hard work. That goes for the entire panel as well. 

Mr. Riendeau, one of the things that you do is you help Hoosiers 

in Southern Indiana be able to meet their needs and be able to 

take care of their families, and I want to thank you for that. 

I heard regularly from Hoosiers on the importance of getting 

high-quality American commodities, such as Hoosier-grown meat 

and produce, to the people in our country who need it most, and 

that is supported by TEFAP, the Emergency Food Assistance Program. 

You highlight the critical nature of TEFAP in helping relief food 

insecurity. Can you share in more detail how TEFAP adds value 

to the foods you distribute from food donations and from other programs at Dare to Care? 

Mr. RIENDEAU. Certainly. I will highlight two things. 

First of all, just the volume of the product we receive from 

TEFAP is critical as we face what remains to be near record levels 

of food insecurity in Southern Indiana and in Kentucky. So the 

product itself is important in terms of providing meals to people in 

need. 

Dare to Care has worked over the last few years to really begin 

using our food and programs to improve the health and nutrition 

of our clients. We know that there is a direct link between poor 

diet and health. 

The problem comes in terms of the donated product that we receive. We cannot always count on what that is going to be, and we 

get what we get. 

TEFAP is 100 percent—considered 100 percent nutritious foods 

to encourage, so TEFAP is a critical component of our ability to get 

healthier, fresher food to our clients and address those health 

needs that we see. 

Senator DONNELLY. This next question will be for you again, Mr. 

Riendeau, and Mr. Right as well. The importance of knowing how 

to stretch food dollars is really significant. Purdue Extension in our 

States does a great job in helping families gain skills and strategies 

that help make grocery trips more successful. 

So, Mr. Riendeau and Mr. Wright, can you share with us more 

about the nutrition education and the skill-building programs that 

you talk to families about to help them stretch their dollars and 

make good food decisions? 

Mr. Wright, would you like to go first? 

Mr. WRIGHT. Sure. Thank you, Senator. 

Yes. An important part of the model we have going forward is 

the Alabama Cooperative Extension Program, SNAP-Ed program, 

and certainly education on how to shop smarter and how to cook 

smarter and how do we cook healthier, I cannot stress the huge importance of that. 

The store that I actually am involved with in Atlanta has got a 

program now that is a 6-week cooking program, and it addresses 

the same issues of how to shop, how to stretch your dollars, how 

to make your budget work for you, and what you are putting in 

your basket and how to prepare that and prepare that in a healthy 

way. 
46 

So I cannot speak enough about the importance of the education 

piece and the partnership that we look forward to having in Auburn. 

Senator DONNELLY. Mr. Riendeau? 

Mr. RIENDEAU. You raise a great point. One of the things we 

have come to realize as we push more healthy food out and make 

is available is that access is only part of the issue. 

The understanding why it is important to eat, changing cultural 

habits and attitudes, and then understanding what to do with 

healthy products is super critical. 

So we have a program called Cooking Matters, which is a 6-week 

program that teaches adults and children and families how to shop 

for, prepare, and consume healthy food on a budget. We have a dietician on staff. She works to operate that program. We also hand 

out nutrition-related information and recipes with the products 

that we distribute. 

A lot of the product we get from TEFAP, oftentimes our clients 

will ask, ‘‘What is this? What do I do with it? It is healthy, but I 

do not know what to do with it,’’ so we have to educate them. So 

education, nutritional education is a critical component of all the 

work that we do, and anything that the Committee could do to help 

us on that front would be very important. 

Senator DONNELLY. One last question, and this would be for Dr. 

Schanzenbach. Can you describe in greater detail some of the 

threats to food security for children and why the challenges they 

face are a little bit different than adults? 

Ms. SCHANZENBACH. Sure. I have been studying food insecurity, 

especially among children, for quite some time, and it is a really 

hard, hard nut to crack, and in particular, what we find is a lot 

of times in those poorest families, the adults in the household are 

suffering from other challenges, mental health problems, depression, and so on. 

As a result, not only it is hard to get a job and hold down a job, 

but it is just hard to go grocery shopping, cook meals, et cetera. 

Senator DONNELLY. Right. 

Ms. SCHANZENBACH. So it is no fault of the children’s, to be sure. 

Senator DONNELLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator STRANGE. [Presiding.] Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Klobuchar. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and 

I want to thank you and to thank Senator Roberts and Stabenow 

for this hearing today. 

This Nutrition Assistance Program is very important in my 

State, and I am proud to say that our SNAP program last year, we 

had a—2015, Minnesota was one of 11 States that had its error 

rate validated by the USDA and as a result received a bonus payment. I am going to have some questions on the record from our 

first panel about that, but clearly, we are doing something right. 

Last year, 479,000 Minnesotans participated in the SNAP program, but almost 69 percent of those participants were in families 

with children. 

My State is not alone in terms of need. So, Dr. Schanzenbach, 

what more can we do to strengthen SNAP nutrition education pro-
47 

grams and support efforts taking place in communities so that 

SNAP participants can make healthy choices? 

Ms. SCHANZENBACH. Sure. So in terms of healthy choices, I really 

think we want to capitalize on what is great about SNAP, which 

is that it works well with the free market system, and to do that, 

typically we need to either change demand for fruits and vegetables 

and healthy foods, either through education programs or by changing prices, by giving bonuses for purchase of health foods. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Very good. 

Mr. Wright, bringing broadband is one of my top priorities to 

rural communities, and we have some real issues in our State with 

that, farmers that do their business at McDonald’s parking lots and 

things like that. 

So in the case of the last Farm Bill, it included a pilot program 

to test the feasibility of online SNAP purchases. Rural broadband 

can also, of course, increase access, and do you anticipate that access to rural broadband for your customers is going to be a barrier 

for participating in the program? 

Mr. WRIGHT. I am sure we are going to find some of the proverbial digital deserts out there, and I guess that is two ways to look 

at that. It may be a challenge, but it also gives an opportunity to 

address some of those issues. But we think we can do that with 

some technology. We still have people today that are actually using 

something like a satellite dish and some other things on buildings 

to be able to access technology. 

So we will find a way to work, make this work, but it would be 

great if this continues to be at the forefront of discussion in the 

Farm Bill that broadband access is improved in these areas. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. Riendeau, one important program that helps alleviate hunger is the Emergency Food Assistance Program, and I recently 

joined with Senators Casey and Perdue to be proactive in purchasing and donating bonus commodities to places like Second Harvest Heartland in St. Paul, and the bonus issue was just raised by 

Doctor. Can you talk about the importance of the USDA’s bonus 

commodities, and have bonus commodities from the USDA kept 

pace with the demand? 

Mr. RIENDEAU. Thank you, and thank you for your support of 

that important program. 

Yes, the bonus component is very important to us. It is in addition to the base, and it all goes towards helping us meet what we 

see as near record levels and unacceptably high levels of food insecurity. 

Again, I guess I would talk about the nutritional aspects of the 

products that we receive through that program. These are highquality proteins, vegetables, fruits, things that we do not get donated, things that we have to either buy or receive through this 

program. So it is critical to helping us not only meet the need, but 

meeting it with the right types of food. 

Thank you for your continued support of that. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you. 

Mr. Schaeffer, public-private partnerships play an important role 

in pooling resources, maximizing the value. Can you elaborate on 
48 

your experience with public-private partnerships and the employment outcomes you have seen as a result? 

Mr. SCHAEFFER. Absolutely. Thank you for the question, Senator. 

It has been not just a hallmark of CEO’s approach, but also a 

hallmark of the SNAP Employment and Training Program and I 

think an element that has helped it extend its reach far more 

broadly than otherwise exists. 

I can give you an example in two States in which we have 

worked, Pennsylvania and Ohio. In Ohio, there was a strong interest in bringing CEO’s reentry services to the State across Cincinnati, Columbus, and Cleveland, large numbers of people coming 

home every year facing both food insecurity and a lack of employment, and those folks are universally eager to work, eager to not 

be on benefits, but needing that support. 

The State teamed different agencies, the Department of Corrections, the Department of Jobs and Family Services to support 

CEO’s entry into the State, but part of that was a 50–50 match, 

the support from the Jobs and Family Services through the SNAP 

E&T program. We will be able to leverage in Ohio over the next 

2 years, I think, over $2 million in that match program, and so it 

is an ability for States to design programs and projects, initiatives 

that are responsive to local needs that meet their priorities, but 

also gain far more resources than they would otherwise without the 

match. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. All right. Very good. Thank you, all of you. 

You brought me a gift, ‘‘Thank you for asking such nice questions.’’ Thank you. 

Chairman ROBERTS. [Presiding.] It is amazing what you have to 

do to achieve bipartisan support. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. That will conclude our hearing today, and I 

want to thank each of our witnesses for taking time to share your 

views on the nutrition programs within the Farm Bill. 

The testimonies provided today are valuable for the Committee 

to hear firsthand, and we will follow up with the suggestions of 

various witnesses to meet with our staff, so we can further learn 

from you what we can do to better improve the program. 

For those in the audience who want to provide additional 

thoughts on the Farm Bill, we have set up an address on the Senate Ag Committee’s website to collect your input. Please go to 

ag.senate.gov—been waiting all day to say that—ag.senate.gov, and 

click on the Farm Bill hearing box on the left-hand side of your 

screen. That link will be open for 5 business days following today’s 

hearing. 

To my fellow members, we would ask that any additional questions you may have for the record be submitted to the Committee 

Clerk, 5 business days from today or by 5:00 p.m., next Thursday, 

September 21st. 

The Committee stands adjourned. Thank you so much. 

[Whereupon, at 12:00 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 
(49) 

A P P E N D I X 

SEPTEMBER 14, 2017 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
(101) 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 

SEPTEMBER 14, 2017 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126