U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

31–270 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018

PROGRAM INTEGRITY FOR THE SUPPLEMENTAL 

NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 

JOINT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTHCARE, 

BENEFITS, AND ADMINISTRATIVE RULES 

AND THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MAY 9, 2018 

Serial No. 115–83 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

http://oversight.house.gov 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

Trey Gowdy, South Carolina, Chairman 

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee 

Darrell E. Issa, California 

Jim Jordan, Ohio 

Mark Sanford, South Carolina 

Justin Amash, Michigan 

Paul A. Gosar, Arizona 

Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee 

Greg Gianforte, Montana 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

Thomas Massie, Kentucky 

Mark Meadows, North Carolina 

Ron DeSantis, Florida 

Dennis A. Ross, Florida 

Mark Walker, North Carolina 

Rod Blum, Iowa 

Jody B. Hice, Georgia 

Steve Russell, Oklahoma 

Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin 

Will Hurd, Texas 

Gary J. Palmer, Alabama 

James Comer, Kentucky 

Paul Mitchell, Michigan 

Elijah E. Cummings, Maryland, Ranking 

Minority Member 

Carolyn B. Maloney, New York 

Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Columbia 

Wm. Lacy Clay, Missouri 

Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts 

Jim Cooper, Tennessee 

Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia 

Robin L. Kelly, Illinois 

Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan 

Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey 

Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois 

Jamie Raskin, Maryland 

Jimmy Gomez, Maryland 

Peter Welch, Vermont 

Matt Cartwright, Pennsylvania 

Mark DeSaulnier, California 

Stacey E. Plaskett, Virgin Islands 

John P. Sarbanes, Maryland 

SHERIA CLARKE, Staff Director 

ROBERT BORDEN, Deputy Staff Director 

WILLIAM MCKENNA, General Counsel 

BETSY FERGUSON, Counsel 

ANUDEEP BUDDHARAJU, Counsel 

KILEY BIDELMAN, Clerk 

DAVID RAPALLO, Minority Staff Director 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTHCARE, BENEFITS, AND ADMINISTRATIVE RULES

Jim Jordan, Ohio, Chairman 

Mark Walker, North Carolina, Vice Chair 

Darrell E. Issa, California 

Mark Sanford, South Carolina 

Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee 

Mark Meadows, North Carolina 

Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin 

Paul Mitchell, Michigan 

Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois, Ranking 

Minority Member 

Jim Cooper, Tennessee 

Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Columbia 

Robin L. Kelly, Illinois 

Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey 

Stacey E. Plaskett, Virgin Islands 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

Gary Palmer, Alabama, Chairman 

Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin, Vice Chair 

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

Thomas Massie, Kentucky 

Mark Walker, North Carolina 

Mark Sanford, South Carolina 

Jamie Raskin, Maryland, Ranking Minority 

Member 

Mark DeSaulnier, California 

Matt Cartwright, Pennsylvania 

Wm. Lacy Clay, Missouri 

(Vacancy) 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on May 9, 2018 ................................................................................. 1 

WITNESSES 

Mr. Brandon Lipps, Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service, Acting Deputy Under Secretary, Food , Nutrition , and Consumer Services, U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 7 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 9 

Ms. Kathy Larin, Director of Education, Workforce, and Income Security, 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 15 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 17 

Mr. Sam Adolphsen, Senior Fellow, The Foundation for Government Accountability 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 48 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 50 

Ms. Stacy Dean, Vice President for Food Assistance Policy, The Center on 

Budget and Policy Priorities 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 68 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 70 

APPENDIX 

Letter for the Record from EPIC.org, submitted by Ranking Member 

Krishnamoorthi .................................................................................................... 112 

Letter for the Record from the Network Lobby for Catholic Social Justice, 

submitted by Ranking Member Krishnamoorthi ............................................... 115 

Questions for the Record, submitted by Members of the Committee .................. 117 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(1) 

PROGRAM INTEGRITY FOR THE SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 

Wednesday, May 9, 2018 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTHCARE, BENEFITS, AND

ADMINISTRATIVE RULES, JOINT WITH THE SUBCOMMITTEE

ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 10:09 a.m., in Room 

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jim Jordan [chairman 

of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Jordan, Palmer, DesJarlais, Massie, 

Meadows, Walker, Grothman, Krishnamoorthi, Raskin, Kelly, Watson Coleman, and DeSaulnier. 

Also Present: Representative Gianforte. 

Mr. JORDAN. The subcommittee will come to order. We will start 

with opening statements. 

I want to welcome our guests. We will introduce you here in just 

a few minutes and give you your opportunity for an opening statement and then go to questions. You know how these things typically work. You have to listen to the politicians first before we get 

to listen to the experts. 

We are going to start with the gentleman from Alabama with an 

opening statement, and then we will go to the minority side. Then 

I will have some brief remarks, and we will get right to you. 

The gentleman from Alabama is recognized. 

Mr. PALMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I thank the witnesses for being here today. 

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, otherwise 

known as SNAP, offers assistance to millions of Americans who 

cannot afford nutritional food for themselves and their families. 

There are over 45 million Americans who rely on this program. 

The Food and Nutrition Service administers the program in partnership with State agencies, but nearly all the funding comes from 

the Federal taxpayer. In 2017, we spent over $70 billion on SNAP 

and other food programs. With a program of that size and that 

price tag, it is essential to apply the highest standards of program 

integrity. 

The committee has worked to expose a pervasive problem of improper payments in our Federal programs. This is an issue that I 

have paid particular attention to, given that, last year, we had 

$140 billion in improper payments, which I like to remind my colleagues that that is money we had to borrow and pay interest on. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
2 

In fact, improper payments are, as I said, rampant throughout 

the Federal Government, not just this program. The Office of Management and Budget designates SNAP as among its highest risk 

programs due to the estimated dollar loss through improper payments. 

The Food and Nutrition Service provides State agencies with bonuses for having low error rates and penalizes those with high 

ones, but that, I think, has not exactly been the right incentive for 

solving this problem of improper payments. In 2017, State agencies 

in Virginia, Wisconsin, and Alaska admitted to False Claims Act 

violations for fraudulently reporting low error rates to exploit this 

bonus system. This committee is working on a better way to 

incentivize Federal agencies and programs to report on the improper payments and to try to solve this problem. Combined, these 

three States had to repay over $16 million in fraudulently earned 

bonuses, and other State agencies are still being investigated. 

One of the most frustrating aspects about the program is the 

lack of data transparency produced from the prior administration. 

In fiscal years 2015 and 2016, data quality was so poor in over 40 

State agencies that the Food and Nutrition Service decided it could 

not publish its annual national payment error rate. That’s a major 

problem. It means, for a full 2 years, at a critical time for helping 

those grappling during the recession to put food on the table, the 

American public was left in the dark. 

The Food and Nutrition Service has not published a national 

payment error rate since fiscal year 2014. If you can’t see how bad 

a problem is, if you don’t understand how bad the problem is, you 

cannot possibly fix it. You can’t get to a solution. 

The national payment error rate for 2014 was 3.6 percent, which accounts for $2.1 billion in overpayments and $500 million in underpayments. That is what we have been operating on for over 3 

years now with lack of data. 

Today, we may hear how infrequent fraud is in the SNAP program, but perhaps it is not frequent because it is not appropriately 

measured. 

As reported by the USDA inspector general, the Food and Nutrition Service has not established how States should compile, track, 

and report fraud in a uniform manner. The Federal Government 

cannot possibly grasp the scope and frequency of fraud in the program until we figure out how to report it. 

We also have a problem with the trafficking of SNAP benefits 

that diverts Federal money away from the intended purpose of providing nutritional meals to those in need. Food and Nutrition oversees retailer trafficking where some store owners have been found 

to illegally redeem over $1.2 million in SNAP benefits. 

Just a few weeks ago, investigators concluded a multiyear investigation, Operation Halfback, finding hundreds of people and businesses trafficked almost $4 million in SNAP benefits, some of 

which went to purchase guns and drugs. 

We have also noticed loopholes in the Food and Nutrition Service 

regulations where retailers who have been permanently disqualified from SNAP for trafficking are still in the system. If someone 

owns a second SNAP-certified store, they are still eligible to receive 

SNAP benefits in their non-disqualified store. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
3 

So make no mistake, our fellow Americans deserve a helping 

hand in times of hardship, but waste and fraud take this assistance 

straight out of their hands and put it in the hands of people who 

don’t need it and who are abusing it. 

I look forward to hearing solutions from our witnesses today to 

bring sustainability and integrity to the program. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. JORDAN. I thank the chairman. 

I will now turn to the ranking member from Maryland, Professor 

Raskin. 

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much for calling this 

hearing, and I want to thank the witnesses for appearing today, 

too. 

SNAP is, of course, America’s most important antihunger program. It reduces poverty and food insecurity, and improves health 

and economic outcomes for more than 42 million Americans, especially children. People receive an average $1.40 per meal through 

the SNAP program. In order to be on it, you have to complete a 

detailed application and provide documentation on your income, 

identity, immigration status, and address. Nearly 90 percent of 

people on SNAP belong to households with children under the age 

of 18, or elderly persons over 60, or a family member with disabilities. 

In my home State of Maryland, over 696,000 people benefit from 

SNAP. In my district, it is 15,000 households. SNAP allows families to purchase nutritious meals in retailer locations, including 

farmers markets. 

This is a program that, I think, matters to every Member of Congress. Americans in every single congressional district benefit from 

SNAP. I looked at all of our districts, Mr. Chairman, and there are 

tens of thousands of our constituents who are on the SNAP program. 

The hearing occurs 1 week before the 2018 farm bill is slated for 

consideration on the House floor. That bill would impose dramatic 

new requirements that would effectively stop more than 2 million 

Americans in need from receiving food aid under SNAP. 

That comes after the House passed a $1.5 trillion tax cut that 

will give the wealthiest 1 percent of tax filers $84 billion in 2019 

alone. As it turns out, the tax cut recently enacted could finance 

the entire SNAP program for nearly 1.5 years. In fiscal year 2017, 

the cost of the entire SNAP program was $68 billion. 

So I find it touching that we can give away billions in tax dollars 

to corporate investors who don’t actually need it and don’t have to 

prove that they are even working to receive their tax bonanza 

while at the same time planning to increase work requirements 

and cut food aid for Americans who are going hungry. 

I know that some will try to justify cuts to SNAP with allegations of fraud and abuse. Undoubtedly, there are corrections that 

can be made to the 3 percent of payments that are wrong, more of 

them, I understand it, underpayments than overpayments. But in 

fact, SNAP has one of the lowest fraud rates in the government at 

less than 5 percent. 

Over the last several years, the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

has taken aggressive steps to improve SNAP oversight and to work 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
4 

with States on rooting out waste. The USDA has brought down the 

rate of trafficking to about 1 percent of benefits over the last 20 

years. While all of us agree that waste, fraud, and abuse need to 

be rooted out, I think there are clearly other places in the government we could be looking. 

Mr. Chairman, I will just close on that thought. We had a hear- ing that found that there was $125 billion in immediate savings 

that would be available by cutting waste at the Pentagon, and I 

would hope we would be able to focus on that, too. 

I yield back. 

Mr. JORDAN. I thank the gentleman. 

I now recognize the ranking member from Illinois for his statement. 

Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much for 

holding this hearing. I would like this committee to help improve 

how the government serves the American people. We should start 

by recognizing the enormously important public service provided by 

the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program otherwise known 

as SNAP. 

SNAP feeds 42 million Americans who face hunger and food insecurity. In my own district, the Eighth Congressional District of Illinois, SNAP provides meals to nearly 28,000 households. 

In fiscal year 2014, 69 percent of SNAP participants were families with children. SNAP is vital to America’s low-income children. 

No other nutrition or income-support program reaches as many atrisk children or contributes as much to helping very low-income 

households who have children. 

SNAP’s value far exceeds its costs. This year, for households in 

the program, SNAP will cost just $262.72 per household per year. 

According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, SNAP 

averages just $1.40 per person per meal. These meals are crucial 

to sustaining these indigent families. 

I know what I am talking about because I have personal experience with SNAP’s predecessor, the food stamp program. I came to 

our country with my family from India when I was 3 months old, 

so my father could pursue his engineering education and our family 

could embrace all the opportunities that America has to offer. But 

despite my family’s best efforts, it wasn’t easy, and there was 

struggle. When my family needed help, thanks to the incredible 

generosity and goodwill of the people of America and its government, we were allowed to be put on food stamps. 

Today, my father is an engineering professor, my brother is a 

doctor, and I am honored to represent the people of Illinois’ Eighth 

Congressional District. That is the American dream, the promise of 

a middle-class life with the opportunity for your children to have 

an even better life than you did. That dream was possible for my 

family because of my parents’ hard work and the opportunities our 

country makes possible. But it was also possible because of food 

stamps. For families like mine and millions of others, SNAP and 

its predecessors have served as a critical social safety net and allowed us to bounce back from financial hardship. 

I believe that we must root out any fraud, waste, or abuse in 

SNAP and any other government programs, for that matter. According to the United States Department of Agriculture Food and 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
5 

Nutrition Service, for fiscal year 2014, 3.66 percent of SNAP benefits were issued through improper payments—3.66 percent. I 

should say that any amount of fraud, waste, or abuse is too much. 

That is why I believe that the goal of our Oversight Committee 

should be to eliminate even the smallest amount of any improper 

payments, whether it is in SNAP programs or any other government expenditures. 

But I strongly disagree with any attempt to exploit common 

ground—that is common ground to root out waste, fraud, and 

abuse—to justify severe cuts to our Nation’s premier antihunger 

program that serves millions and millions of women, men, children, 

seniors, and disabled Americans. 

I believe firmly that the best antipoverty job program ever created is a j-o-b, a job. But I also believe that it is wrong to allow 

our most vulnerable citizens to go hungry. 

I hope that the witnesses today will shed light on how to improve 

SNAP program integrity without building greater barriers to helping Americans who would go hungry. 

Thank you, and I look forward to your testimony. 

Mr. JORDAN. I thank the gentleman. 

I want you all to imagine the scenario that I think could play out 

in every one of our districts later this afternoon. 

There is a guy who works second shift at the local plant. Remember, when you work second shift, you miss half your kid’s Little 

League games, you miss some of their afterschool activities. But 

here’s a guy who’s working hard for his family. He goes out to get 

in his truck to drive to work. As he’s getting in his truck, he looks 

a couple houses down and he sees the guy sitting on the front 

porch drinking coffee, reading the paper. And the second-shift 

worker knows the front-porch sitter can work and won’t work and 

is getting his money. 

As he gets in his truck to drive to work, thinking about the guy 

back on the front porch, he has the radio on. It happens to be the 

news hour. The reporter comes on and says the Federal Government has a $20 trillion debt. They have some crazy program giving 

money to favorite corporations. One company went bankrupt and 

cost the taxpayers millions of dollars. 

He hears all that, remembers the guy back on the front porch, 

and guess what? This guy is ticked off. I would argue that he has 

every right to be mad. 

At the same time that he is driving to work, there is a lady driving home from work. She teaches second grade at the local school. 

She, like any good teacher, has busted her tail all day long to help 

her students. She is driving home from work, happens to have the 

radio on, happens to be on the same station where she hears the 

same reporter say the Federal Government has a $20 trillion debt. 

They have some program that gives money to some connected corporation. This company went bankrupt and cost the taxpayers millions. 

She hears all that as she pulls into her driveway, which just happens to be on the same street, and she sees the same guy sitting 

on the front porch drinking his coffee reading the paper. She knows 

he can work and won’t work and is getting her money. And guess 

what? She’s mad, too. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
6 

I would argue that second-shift workers and second-grade teachers are tired of this approach we have to social welfare, which says 

to some people who are able-bodied adults, some of them who are 

even able-bodied adults with no kids, you don’t have to do something to get taxpayer dollars. 

So I know, over the next hour or so, we are going to spend a lot 

of time talking about the 40 million people who get food stamps, 

and that is appropriate. We need to. In some cases, it is a very 

good program helping people just like the ranking member talked 

about his own family. But I think we also have to remember the 

260-some other million folks in this country who are paying for the 

program, and it is not too much to ask to say, if you are getting 

a benefit from the government, you should have to do something 

to receive that. After all, it is hardworking taxpayers’ dollars that 

we are talking about. 

So I say all that, I hope, to set a little context for the next few 

hours as we talk about this important program and as we move 

into a debate on the farm bill, where we talk about reauthorization 

of the SNAP program. 

With that, I will turn to our witnesses. Let me introduce our witnesses, then we will go to them. 

Let me start with Mr. Brandon Lipps, Administrator of the Food 

and Nutrition Service and Acting Deputy Under Secretary of the 

Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services at the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture. 

Mr. Lipps, we appreciate you being here. 

We have Ms. Kathy Larin, director of education, workforce, and 

income security at the U.S. Government Accountability Office. 

We appreciate you being here with us, Ms. Larin. 

And Mr. Sam Adolphsen—Adolphsen? I don’t know where to put 

the accent. Say it again? 

Mr. ADOLPHSEN. Adolphsen. 

Mr. JORDAN. Adolphsen, all right. I put the accent in the right 

place. 

A senior fellow at the Foundation for Government Accountability. 

And Ms. Stacy Dean, vice president for food assistance policy at 

the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. 

We swear you in here, so if you will all please stand and raise 

your right hand, we will do this. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. JORDAN. Let the record show that each witness answered in 

the affirmative. 

Unanimous consent that Mr. Gianforte be able to participate in 

all aspects of the hearing. 

We are glad you are here. 

The ranking member is recognized for a motion. 

Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit two 

letters for the record, one from EPIC.org, that is Electronic Privacy 

Information Center, and the other from the Network Lobby for 

Catholic Social Justice. 

Mr. JORDAN. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. JORDAN. Now, we will go right down the line here. 

Mr. Lipps, you get your 5 minutes. You know how it works. Try 

to keep it under, if you can. If you go over, don’t go much over. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
7 

Then we will move down the list, and then we’ll come back to questions. 

The gentleman is recognized. 

WITNESS STATEMENTS 

STATEMENT OF BRANDON LIPPS 

Mr. LIPPS. Good morning, Chairman Jordan, Chairman Palmer, 

and Ranking Member Krishnamoorthi, and members of the subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to talk to you today about 

the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program commonly known 

as SNAP. I am the Acting Deputy Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services at USDA, and Administrator of the 

Food and Nutrition Service, where I oversee 15 nutrition programs, 

totaling nearly $100 billion per year. The largest of these programs 

is SNAP, with a total of 40.7 million low-income individuals being 

served. 

Today, I want to talk to you about three priorities that guide our 

work at FNS: integrity, self-sufficiency, and customer service. 

These interdependent principles help us to ensure that SNAP operates effectively, efficiently, and as intended by law. 

FNS works closely with our State partners to administer nutrition assistance programs that leverage our Nation’s agricultural 

abundance. All those involved in these programs at the Federal, 

State, and local level are accountable for the program integrity. 

In programs of this size, even low fraud rates can translate into 

billions of dollars in taxpayer money. Therefore, FNS uses advanced data analytics to prevent new and emerging threats, as well 

as to identify and remove retailers who take advantage of the program. We also work with States to educate and equip them to fight 

participant fraud. 

To that end, just yesterday, we announced a comprehensive 

SNAP fraud framework geared at helping States with the tools 

they need to combat participant fraud. 

Another fraud reduction measure, which was included in the fiscal year 2019 President’s budget, is the National Accuracy Clearinghouse, which improves States’ abilities to check for duplicate 

participation in SNAP across state lines. 

It is also critical that benefits are issued only to those who are 

eligible and in the correct amount. For the first time in 3 years, 

FNS will announce a SNAP improper payment rate for fiscal year 

2017 in June. It is worth noting that the OIG’s audit findings suggest that State performance bonuses incentivize this bias. The fiscal year 2019 President’s budget also called for eliminating these 

performance bonuses. 

Another important piece of our strategy is coordinating and enhancing ongoing efforts at the agency. That is why we recently announced the hire of a chief integrity officer to foster greater collaboration and to leverage lessons learned across each of our 15 nutrition programs. 

Another key agency priority is self-sufficiency. Nutrition assistance programs should not only be measured by how they provide 

for those in need but also how they support the transition to independence for those able to move beyond government assistance. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
8 

There are approximately 15 million working-age, able-bodied 

adults on SNAP. Of these, over 9 million are not working. We can, 

and we should, do better. 

FNS recently published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, which received over 22,000 comments on how to best help 

able-bodied adults without dependents, which we referred to 

ABAWDs, move back to stable employment. As the economy continues to improve, there is no better time than now to discuss how 

we can more effectively help those ABAWDs move to self-sufficiency. 

I recently visited an employment and training site and had a 

chance to talk to women training for nontraditional jobs. The excitement in their voices about the prospect of a new career and a 

new chapter in their lives was truly empowering. E&T programs 

can have a profound effect on low-income Americans, lifting them 

from poverty to prosperity. FNS’s SNAP to Skills project and our 

E&T Learning Academy are just two of the ways we are working 

with States and local partners to identify and ensure best practices 

and improve our employment and training outcomes. 

Finally, we have the responsibility to provide the best customer 

service to all of our stakeholders. Though the Federal Government 

develops SNAP policy and conducts monitoring and oversight, State 

and local agencies are ultimately responsible for delivering program benefits. We must empower them to successfully execute this 

responsibility while also holding them accountable. 

I have met with SNAP administrators from across the country to 

hear from them on what is working and what is not. Many have 

indicated they are looking for more flexibility and less regulation, 

so they can better serve their local populations. 

To that end, we recently issued guidance to improve customer 

service by expanding allowable activities for States that use nonmerit system personnel in their call centers. As we move forward, 

we will continue to identify ways to improve integrity, increase 

self-sufficiency, and deliver high-quality service to all our customers. 

As Secretary Perdue says, we can do right and feed everyone. I 

look forward to continuing to work with Congress to achieve that 

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

[Prepared statement of Mr. Lipps follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
9 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 1 here 31270.001
10 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 2 here 31270.002
11 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 3 here 31270.003
12 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 4 here 31270.004
13 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 5 here 31270.005
14 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 6 here 31270.006
15 

Mr. JORDAN. I thank the gentleman. 

Ms. Larin, you are recognized. 

STATEMENT OF KATHY LARIN 

Ms. LARIN. Chairman Jordan, Chairman Palmer, Ranking Member Krishnamoorthi, Ranking Member Raskin, and members of the 

subcommittees, I am pleased to be here today to discuss GAO’s 

prior and ongoing work on USDA’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program known as SNAP. Specifically, my testimony today 

will address our work on SNAP employment and training programs, improper payment rates, recipient fraud, and retailer trafficking. 

First, regarding SNAP E&T, according to our analysis of USDA 

data, about 14 percent of SNAP recipients were subject to work requirements in an average month of 2016, but only 0.5 percent of 

SNAP’s 43.5 million recipients participated in a SNAP E&T program that year. SNAP E&T programs are generally designed to 

help SNAP recipients increase their ability to obtain regular employment through services such as job search and training. 

States have broad flexibility in how they design their E&T programs, and we found that they have made various changes to these 

programs in recent years, such as increasing partnerships with 

State and local organizations to deliver services, and increasing 

their focus on able-bodied adults without dependents, or ABAWDs. 

States we talked to noted that, in recent years, ABAWDs have become increasingly subject to time limits, which prevent those recipients from receiving benefits for more than 3 months unless they 

are working or participating in an employment program. 

Regarding improper payments, in 2015, USDA reported that 3.66 

percent of all SNAP benefits paid in fiscal year 2014, $2.6 billion, 

were improper. GAO reviewed USDA’s SNAP improper payment 

rates in 2016, and we found that State and Federal policy changes 

likely affected these rates in the last decade. 

Specifically, we found that policies that simplified program rules 

likely lowered improper payment rates while other policies may 

have increased them. USDA did not report on improper payments 

in 2016 or 2017 due to data quality issues identified by the department and by the USDA IG. However, USDA has been working with 

States to resolve these issues and is expected to release new estimates by June 30 of this year. 

Regarding recipient fraud, in 2014, we reported that States faced 

several challenges in combating recipient fraud. For example, we 

found that USDA guidance on the use of data analytics to detect 

fraud lacked specificity, and we recommended that USDA develop 

additional guidance. We also found that tools recommended for 

monitoring e-commerce or social media websites for potential fraud 

were ineffective. USDA’s recently released fraud framework may 

help address some of these issues. Additionally, we recommended 

that USDA consider revisiting its financial incentives to better support cost-effective antifraud strategies, but the department decided 

not to make changes to address this issue. 

Finally, regarding trafficking, in 2006, we reported that SNAP 

was vulnerable to retailer trafficking. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
16 

For example, we found that USDA did not have a system in place 

to ensure that retailers at highest risk for trafficking were quickly 

targeted for monitoring, and we recommended that they provide 

earlier targeted oversight to these stores. We also found that 

USDA’s penalties for retail trafficking may have been insufficient 

to deter traffickers, and we recommended that penalties be increased. 

Since we reported on these issues, USDA has established risk 

levels for each retailer and proposed rules to increase penalties. 

However, USDA has not finalized these rules, and as of fall 2017, 

these rules were considered inactive. 

In conclusion, many of our Nation’s most vulnerable citizens rely 

on SNAP to obtain an adequate and nutritious diet, and USDA has 

taken some steps to improve the integrity of the program, but more 

could be done. 

GAO continues to examine these issues for the subcommittee and 

looks forward to providing additional information later this year. 

This concludes my statement, and I am happy to answer any 

other questions you have. 

[Prepared statement of Ms. Larin follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
17 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 7 here 31270.007
18 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 8 here 31270.008
19 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 9 here 31270.009
20 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 10 here 31270.010
21 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 11 here 31270.011
22 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 12 here 31270.012
23 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 13 here 31270.013
24 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 14 here 31270.014
25 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 15 here 31270.015
26 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 16 here 31270.016
27 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 17 here 31270.017
28 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 18 here 31270.018
29 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 19 here 31270.019
30 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 20 here 31270.020
31 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 21 here 31270.021
32 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 22 here 31270.022
33 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 23 here 31270.023
34 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 24 here 31270.024
35 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 25 here 31270.025
36 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 26 here 31270.026
37 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 27 here 31270.027
38 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 28 here 31270.028
39 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 29 here 31270.029
40 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 30 here 31270.030
41 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 31 here 31270.031
42 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 32 here 31270.032
43 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 33 here 31270.033
44 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 34 here 31270.034
45 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 35 here 31270.035
46 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 36 here 31270.036
47 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 37 here 31270.037
48 

Mr. JORDAN. Thank you, Ms. Larin. 

Mr. Adolphsen? 

STATEMENT OF SAM ADOLPHSEN 

Mr. ADOLPHSEN. Chairman Jordan, Chairman Palmer, Ranking 

Member Krishnamoorthi, members of the committee, thank you for 

the privilege of testifying. 

A couple years ago, I sat in an FBI office in Portland, Maine, presenting suspicious food stamp data to FBI special agents and investigators from the USDA. In my role as chief operating officer at the 

Maine Department of Health and Human Services, a colleague and 

I had discovered what we believed was a massive case of welfare 

fraud. The Federal officials agreed, and, after a lengthy investigation, Ali Daham, the owner of Ahram Market in Portland, was 

found guilty of millions of dollars in SNAP and other welfare fraud. 

Daham, who was also fraudulently receiving SNAP benefits himself, had been trading cash for food stamps in his corner store for 

years. It is one of the largest fraud cases in Maine history. 

The Maine story is not unique. There are cases like this around 

the country, even as some claim welfare fraud isn’t a problem or 

that it is a victimless crime. 

It is a big problem, and the victims are very real. Fraud steals 

from the truly needy and traps families in dependency. 

An award-winning fraud director in one Ohio County said he believes the real fraud number is as high as 20 percent, one in five 

cases. When States look for food stamp fraud, they find it. What 

is indefensible is that many don’t bother to look. Too many view 

Federal food stamp funds as free money instead of as a resource 

to be carefully guarded. 

To stop trafficking fraud where benefits are traded for cash or 

drugs, we should limit the number of users of an EBT food stamp 

card, require people to cooperate with fraud investigators, and empower States to shut down retailers that steal benefits. 

To stop eligibility fraud, those cases when individuals get on food 

stamps when they are not eligible, let’s require real-time reporting, 

conduct regular checks, and close loopholes. 

There is much more detail on these solutions in my written testimony. 

Change needs to happen. That much is clear. But the best way 

to stop welfare fraud is to get people off welfare and back to work. 

And not all food stamp fraud happens at a street corner drug 

deal or in a dingy convenience store. The fraud that harms the 

most people happens with the government stamp of approval. 

Abuse of waivers of work requirements for able-bodied adults has 

disfigured Federal law and waived work for millions. So instead of 

working, able-bodied adults with no kids on food stamps don’t 

work. Despite record low unemployment and millions of open jobs, 

three out of four don’t work at all. 

A Federal law allows waivers only when unemployment is at 

least 10 percent or there are not enough jobs, but there are 1,200 

counties and cities were work requirements are being waived, and 

just 42 of those have unemployment above 10 percent. 

Today, there are a record number of open jobs available in the 

country, 6.6 million open jobs. California is that their all-time low 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
49 

unemployment, and yet, they have been granted a statewide waiver 

of work requirements for more than 800,000 able-bodied adults 

with no kids. One of these California counties has 2.2 percent unemployment. These waivers should not be allowed any more than 

swapping an EBT card for drugs is. 

The waivers for work requirements were meant for tough economic times. Instead, they continue to be handed out in the best 

economy in decades. That is the definition of fraud. It is not right, 

and it is not how the program should work. It robs able-bodied 

adults of the opportunity and dignity that they gain through the 

power of work. 

This waiver fraud is possible because previous regulations and 

guidance from USDA has allowed it and, in the past, even encouraged it. By allowing the use of bad data, old data, and gerrymandering, California and 33 other States waive work for more 

than a third of the country. 

It is clear that changes are needed to battle the significant problem of trafficking and eligibility fraud, but the best way to improve 

the integrity of food stamps is to stop this waiver abuse and move 

millions of able-bodied adults from welfare to work. 

Thank you. I am happy to answer any questions. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Adolphsen follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
50 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 38 here 31270.038
51 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 39 here 31270.039
52 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 40 here 31270.040
53 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 41 here 31270.041
54 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 42 here 31270.042
55 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 43 here 31270.043
56 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 44 here 31270.044
57 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 45 here 31270.045
58 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 46 here 31270.046
59 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 47 here 31270.047
60 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 48 here 31270.048
61 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 49 here 31270.049
62 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 50 here 31270.050
63 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 51 here 31270.051
64 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 52 here 31270.052
65 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 53 here 31270.053
66 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 54 here 31270.054
67 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 55 here 31270.055
68 

Mr. JORDAN. Thank you, Mr. Adolphsen. 

Ms. Dean, you’re up. 

STATEMENT OF STACY DEAN 

Ms. DEAN. Chairman Jordan, Chairman Palmer, Ranking Member Krishnamoorthi, members of the subcommittee, thank you for 

the opportunity to testify this morning. I am Stacy Dean, the vice 

president for food assistance policy at the Center on Budget and 

Policy Priorities, a nonpartisan policy institute here in D.C. 

I plan to talk about three things this morning: the vital role of 

SNAP, the vital role of program integrity in SNAP, and the likely 

impact of the pending House farm bill on SNAP. 

First, SNAP. SNAP is a highly effective antihunger program. 

Today, it helps about 40 million low-income Americans afford a nutritionally adequate diet by giving them benefits through a debit 

card that they can use only to buy food. Benefits average a $1.40 

per person per meal, and one in eight Americans participate in 

SNAP, which reflects SNAP’s important role in addressing the extensive need across the country. 

SNAP is an entitlement, so anyone who qualifies can receive benefits. That enables SNAP to respond quickly and effectively to support low-income families and communities when the economy turns 

down and need rises. So while SNAP enrollment expands when the 

economy weakens, it also shrinks when the economy recovers. 

SNAP is also an important work support, helping workers both 

when they are between jobs and supplementing their low earnings. 

That is why looking at the work status of participants at a specific 

point in time substantially overstates their joblessness. 

Mr. Lipps noted that, in an average month in 2016, about 9 million adults participating in SNAP did not have earnings, and we 

agree with that. But about 4.5 million of them worked within a 

year, so they were participating on SNAP when they were temporarily unemployed. Of the other 5 million, over a third of them 

couldn’t work due to caregiving responsibilities, and most have 

working spouses. Nearly a quarter had a disability or a chronic 

health condition that limited their work, and close to a third were 

going to school or were not working. 

Second, let me turn to program integrity. 

USDA and States take their roles as stewards of SNAP very seriously, and they emphasize program integrity throughout SNAP’s 

operations, participant eligibility, state accuracy, and participants 

redeeming benefits at SNAP retailers. The authorizing committees 

have mandated some of the most rigorous program integrity standards and systems of any Federal program, and they do provide rigorous oversight of SNAP’s accuracy and fraud detection and prevention systems. 

Numerous measures ensure the accurate assessment of household eligibility during the eligibility determination process, ongoing 

checks, and reassessment of eligibility. The same is true with respect to the proper use of benefits, an area of fraud prevention and 

detection where USDA plays a very significant role. 

These measures are designed to detect and prevent honest mistakes, careless errors, systemic mistakes, and the less frequent 

problem of intentional fraud. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
69 

CRS did an excellent job summarizing the SNAP program integrity and error reduction efforts in a recent report, and a few of its 

observations bear repeating. 

First, errors are not the same as fraud. Many conflate the two. 

Fraud is an intentional activity that breaks Federal or State laws, 

but program stakeholders, particularly recipients in States, may 

also inadvertently err in ways that can then affect benefit amounts. 

Some acts, such as dual enrollment, could be error or fraud, and 

it is important to calibrate the response to the cause of the problem. 

Second, SNAP fraud is rare, according to all available data and 

reports. The illegal and inaccurate activities that do occur are serious and merit a very serious response. However, they do represent 

a small fraction of SNAP activity overall. We strongly favor efforts 

to improve program integrity, so long as they are warranted by evidence, are cost-effective, and would not meaningfully impede program access. 

Third, let me turn to the farm bill. Unfortunately, H.R. 2, the 

farm bill that the House will likely consider next week, could reduce SNAP’s effectiveness. According to CBO, it would cut benefits 

to poor households by more than $17 billion over the next 10 years 

and would cause more than 1 million low-income households with 

more than 2 million people, particularly low-income working families with children, to lose their benefits or have them reduced. It 

includes sweeping new work requirements that would likely prove 

unworkable and increase hunger and poverty. The bill would force 

States to develop large, new bureaucracies but do little to increase 

employment, and leave substantial numbers of low-income people 

with barriers to work, such as very limited skills or chronic health 

conditions, with neither earnings nor food assistance. 

The farm bill could have been a bipartisan effort that strengthens SNAP, promoted work, and shored up program integrity. Instead, it is largely a package of harmful, unworkable, and untested 

policies that will weaken the program. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I am pleased 

to answer your questions. 

[Prepared statement of Ms. Dean follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
70 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 56 here 31270.056
71 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 57 here 31270.057
72 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 58 here 31270.058
73 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 59 here 31270.059
74 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 60 here 31270.060
75 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 61 here 31270.061
76 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 62 here 31270.062
77 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 63 here 31270.063
78 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 64 here 31270.064
79 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 65 here 31270.065
80 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 66 here 31270.066
81 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 67 here 31270.067
82 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 68 here 31270.068
83 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 69 here 31270.069
84 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 70 here 31270.070
85 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 71 here 31270.071
86 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 72 here 31270.072
87 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 73 here 31270.073
88 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 74 here 31270.074
89 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 75 here 31270.075
90 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 76 here 31270.076
91 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 77 here 31270.077
92 

Mr. JORDAN. Thank you, Ms. Dean. 

The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for 5 minutes of 

questioning. 

Mr. PALMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I was listening to your testimony, Ms. Dean, and I find it interesting, some of the things that you quoted there, about how this 

will harm people to go to work. 

I grew up dirt poor. I mean, my father had an eighth-grade education. He’s blind in one eye. And I was able to get out of that situation by working, not by going on a government program. 

What I want to point out to you is, work requirements were implemented in the State of Kansas, and I just want to read some of 

the results. 

Jason, who was previously unemployed and was on food stamps 

for 4 years, after the work requirements, he got a job, and he is 

earning $45,000 a year. 

Do you have a problem with that? I didn’t think you did. 

Amy was previously unemployed. She was on food stamps for 2 years. She is now earning $27,000 a year. Matt was on food stamps for years. He is now earning $34,000 

a year. Sarah was on for 3 years. She is earning $37,000 a year. And I 

could go on. 

The thing that really bothers me about all this is that it comes 

across to me that some folks really do want to see people remain 

dependent on the government, and that, I just can’t believe it. 

I mean, I am going through the farm bill. I’ve read the provisions 

in it for the improvements in SNAP and giving people the ability 

to stay on food stamps while they are getting job training or getting a job or volunteering, and it is just beyond my comprehension 

that anybody would oppose that for able-bodied adults without children. 

I have even heard one of my colleagues say that it would violate 

child labor laws, and I just want to emphasize, this is able-bodied 

adults without children. It doesn’t violate any child labor laws. 

I will tell you the opposition to it violates the laws of common 

sense. I really believe that. 

Mr. Adolphsen, one of the reasons the current work requirements 

in SNAP have been largely ineffective is the widespread use of 

waivers, as you pointed out. And I think it is the GAO report, Ms. 

Larin, you point out that only about 0.5 percent actually took advantage of the training. Out of 43 million people, only about 

200,000, is that correct? 

Ms. LARIN. Yes, 0.5 percent of SNAP recipients participated in 

the SNAP E&T program. The vast majority of SNAP recipients are 

not able-bodied adults. Many are exempt from work requirements. 

Those include children, the elderly, the disabled. But 15 percent 

were work registrants in 2016. 

Mr. PALMER. That would be about 6 million, right? 

Ms. LARIN. Yes, that is correct. 

Mr. PALMER. Fifteen percent of 43 million is a little over 6 million. 

My point here is that there are, right now, about 6 million available jobs. If that 15 percent of able bodies who do no work entered 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
93 

into the work force, we could pretty well fill those positions and 

still provide the benefits to the people who truly need them, the 

disabled, the low-income families with children. 

One other statistic on this that gets me is that I believe about 

63 percent of the people who are on food stamps, Mr. Adolphsen, 

correct me if I’m wrong, are under 35 years old. Is that correct? No, 

a little over half, a little over 50 percent of people on food stamps, 

on SNAP benefits, are under 35. Is that correct? 

Mr. ADOLPHSEN. That sounds right, Congressman. 

Mr. PALMER. Yes, and I think a little over 40 percent of those are 

men. 

This is the guy that was sitting on the front porch, Mr. Chairman, drinking, you said, a cup of coffee. He may have been drinking a beer, I don’t know. I didn’t drive by. That really bothers me, 

again, having grown up the way I did and knowing that the only 

way out of that situation is a good job, a good-paying job. 

As my colleague from Illinois pointed out, that is the best antipoverty program, a good-paying job. It is the best thing to do for 

an individual’s health. 

Would you agree with that, Mr. Adolphsen? 

Mr. ADOLPHSEN. Yes, I think we have seen the results in States 

that have brought work requirements back into play. In my home 

State of Maine, just a year after implementing that requirement, 

the incomes of those individuals that left food stamps more than 

doubled in just 1 year. 

You mentioned Kansas. We have seen that work. I think people 

aren’t participating in E&T because it’s not required. It’s typically 

done only as a voluntary thing, and there’s no penalty if they don’t 

work or if they don’t participate. 

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, my time has expired. I just want to 

close with this, that as a result of the tax cuts and JOBS Act, we 

now have record unemployment. We have higher wages. There are 

over 6 million job openings, and the economy is poised to grow at 

an even greater pace. I cannot think of a better time than this 

right now to help low-income families get out of poverty, get off 

government dependence, and get a job and really get themselves 

onto a brighter future. 

I yield back. 

Mr. JORDAN. I thank the gentleman. 

The gentleman from Illinois is recognized, the ranking member. 

Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. Ms. Dean, I think that Mr. Palmer had 

some points he made, and I think a couple of them were directed 

toward you. Do you want to respond to any of those? 

Ms. DEAN. Thank you so much. 

If I have left anyone with the impression that we don’t believe 

at the center that work is the single most powerful pathway out 

of poverty, then I did a poor job. Of course, work is crucial to family 

well-being and economic success. That is why the center does so 

much work on key work supports, like the earned income tax credit, Medicaid, and SNAP, which is a program that supports lowwage working families. 

The problem is that a lot of work does not pay. So in Mr. Jordan’s example, the custodian at the second-shift plant and the 

teacher’s aide in that second-grade teacher’s class could well be 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
94 

SNAP participants with inconsistent hours, low pay, and no benefits. So the program does play a vital role in supporting work. 

The concern I have about H.R. 2, and I’ll just be brief on this, 

is that before you even get to the question of the work requirements and whether the services that would be offered would be the 

quality kinds of things that Mr. Lipps talked about earlier, 7 million people would have to file a form every month demonstrating 

that they were working 20 hours a week or were exempt. 

And this is where I think we talk about people getting caught in 

a net. A mom with a young kid who was sick has to prove that the 

child was truly sick to the satisfaction of a caseworker. We are suggesting that large, massive bureaucracies can make mistakes and 

put benefits at-risk. So we are putting benefits to families with 

children and workers at-risk, and that is a deep, deep concern. 

So thank you for the opportunity. I’m sorry. I should let you get 

back to your question. 

Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. So kind of explain to us how, as you mention, if H.R. 2 were to go into existence or be passed, that a million 

additional people would essentially go hungry without the food 

stamp assistance that they would receive otherwise. 

Ms. DEAN. I want to be careful about ‘‘going hungry.’’ That is an 

important and powerful term. I think we believe, without food assistance, absolutely, hardship will increase, and families would be 

at-risk. 

CBO does say, for example, 400,000 working families with nearly 

a million people would be terminated from food assistance under 

the bill, which would repeal an option that States have to extend 

the program. That is just making their lives more precarious. 

You are an example of a child that benefited from ensuring 

steady, stable nutrition during key developmental years. 

Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. I think that is one of the fundamental 

issues here, which is that children are in so many of these families 

that receive this SNAP assistance. Through no fault of their own, 

through nothing that they had to do with a mistake on paperwork 

or bureaucratic errors, or anything like that, they may go without 

the essential food assistance that they have come to rely upon. Is 

that fair to say? 

Ms. DEAN. That’s right. It’s an untested scheme, which is really unfortunate, because the last farm bill included $200 million to test 

very robust demonstration projects to look at different interventions around work, so that Congress would have a better sense of 

what works and what doesn’t before obligating billions of dollars to 

a new system. In the end, it’s true, it’s poor families who are atrisk under this approach. 

Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. Tell us, again, how many children will go 

at-risk of losing food assistance because of H.R. 2? 

Ms. DEAN. Sorry, I don’t have that number at the ready, but a 

significant share of the 2 million are families with kids. 

Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. I understand. Ms. Dean, your testimony 

discussed the positive impacts that SNAP has had in reducing hunger and poverty in our country, yet, I’ve also heard people say that 

our investment in antipoverty programs such as SNAP has not had 

any impact on reducing poverty. So can you kind of help us understand the discrepancy in these perspectives? 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
95 

Ms. DEAN. It absolutely has. The official poverty measure doesn’t 

include the value of income transfer programs like SNAP. So that 

is why the Census Bureau recommends using an alternative measure, the supplemental poverty measure, which adds it back in. 

When you add the value of transfer programs, SNAP lifts, for the 

most recent year available, more than 8 million people out of poverty, 4 million children. So poverty experts agree, it is totally appropriate and preferable to include the value of transfer programs. 

When you do that, you see the powerful impact that the safety net 

has on addressing poverty. 

Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. Thank you, Ms. Dean. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. JORDAN. I thank the gentleman. 

The gentleman from Tennessee is recognized, Mr. DesJarlais. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Lipps, you mentioned in your testimony that SNAP is intended to support the transition of able-bodied adults to stable employment. Would you agree that there is a lack of available data 

from USDA in regards to the amount of time individuals actually 

receive the benefits? 

Mr. LIPPS. Yes, Mr. DesJarlais. We have some data on that, but 

it is mostly survey data. We don’t, at the national level, have accurate data held on that. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. So would you agree, then, that it would be very 

difficult for us to judge the effectiveness of the program in 

transitioning people off of welfare if we don’t even know how long 

they are on the program? 

Mr. LIPPS. Yes, sir. I think the more data that we at FNS are 

able to have, the better we can serve recipients. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. How do we fix that? 

Mr. LIPPS. I think we need to make sure that we can have access 

to that type of data. States need to be measuring when people are 

moving on and off of work. 

Ms. Dean added some follow-up to my statistics on the number 

of people not working. I don’t disagree with those, but I think part 

of the problem is that so many of these individuals churn on and 

off work, and the employment and training program is about helping people find long-term, stable employment, and that is what we 

should be measuring on these people. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. States currently receive bonuses for meeting the 

minimum requirements for administering the program. Is that correct? 

Mr. LIPPS. That’s correct. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Okay. Do you also think that these bonuses 

may incentivize States to potentially falsify their records to become 

eligible for these bonuses? And how much are these bonuses? 

Mr. LIPPS. The OIG did suggest in their investigation that that 

was a factor in what States did. The bonuses are $24 million a 

year. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. To all States? 

Mr. LIPPS. To States. I believe we give them to eight States with 

the best error rates and a couple additional States on improved 

error rate. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
96 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. So they are actually sending money to these 

States for doing a good job of signing people up to the program. 

Mr. LIPPS. For processing them well, yes, sir. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. It is often reported by States that their error 

rate is extremely low or even zero. Would you agree that it is important to point out that, under current law, the threshold for errors is actually $37? 

Mr. LIPPS. Yes, sir. That is important to know when calculating 

what the error rate is. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Do you think that should be changed? 

Mr. LIPPS. I think it is important that we accurately report what 

the actual errors are and what people judge that to be. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. So if the threshold is $37, can you speculate 

how much money may be being overlooked? 

Mr. LIPPS. I can’t speculate on that exactly, but if you consider 

that the average benefit is $123, I believe $37 is a significant percentage of that. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Yes, I would agree. 

Mr. Adolphsen, you mentioned in your testimony something 

known as broad-based categorical eligibility, or BBCE. As I pointed 

out earlier, we have an extreme lack of data when it comes to 

SNAP recipients. Would you agree that broad-based categorical eligibility, which waives the asset test, is a contributing factor? 

Mr. ADOLPHSEN. Yes, sir. Since we don’t collect assets at all, we 

have a limited view of the income and resources available to a 

household. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Can you go into some more detail on additional 

problems associated with the BBCE? 

Mr. ADOLPHSEN. Sir, the broad-based categorical eligibility relies 

on a gimmick where States convey a TANF-funded document, usually a brochure, to a recipient, making them eligible. So by handing 

them a TANF-funded document, and some States don’t even actually give it to them, that confers automatic eligibility on them and 

waves the asset test. It also allows their income level to be much 

higher than traditional eligibility. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Isn’t that kind of cheating the system? 

Mr. ADOLPHSEN. I believe it is, and, unfortunately, an increasingly large percentage of cases are found eligible through that door. 

I believe it is over 65 percent, at this point. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Would you say it is possible that some of these 

programs that are cheating the system are also the States where 

these performance bonuses are going? 

Mr. ADOLPHSEN. That is fair to say. I do know the current 

version of the farm bill eliminates broad-based categorical eligibility as well. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Right. I agree. As you point out in your testimony, there is quite a bit of confusion when it comes to who faces 

a work requirement for SNAP and who is exempt, which often 

leads to States not appropriately enforcing work requirements. 

Would you agree that, instead of several confusing categories, it 

would be more effective to simply have one category of work-capable adults from age 18 to 59 with exemptions being for those who 

were pregnant, mentally or physically disabled, or a guardian of a 

child under age of 6? 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
97 

Mr. ADOLPHSEN. Yes, without a doubt, all able-bodied adults 

should have a requirement in place, a work requirement. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. I think that is an issue that over 80 percent of 

America agrees on, whether you are Democrat, independent, or Republican, so I think that is a winning issue. 

And I yield back my time. 

Mr. JORDAN. I thank the gentleman. 

We now recognize the gentlelady from New Jersey for her 5 minutes. 

Ms. WATSON COLEMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I agree with everyone that every able-bodied person in this country who has the skills and the opportunity, and is free of discrimination, should be working, and that the work that they have 

should pay a living wage so that they don’t have to supplement it 

with any kind of government assistance. 

I recognize that SNAP costs a $1.40 a meal, and we are sitting 

here having this long discussion, making assumptions about people 

sitting on their porches, not knowing what the hell their problem 

or issue may be, not even defining what able-bodied might be, 

when we had no discussion on passing an incredibly, incredibly 

generous, outrageous tax bill to the wealthiest 1 percent of this 

country, and we had not a hearing, not a committee meeting, not 

a vetting, not a darn thing, just an opportunity to vote yes or no, 

and I voted no. 

I am offended that we make assumptions about people who we 

may think are able-bodied or should be working when they are only 

receiving minimal help from the government in order to ensure 

that they are nutritiously cared for, even if they have children or 

don’t have children. 

The richest country in the world needs to spread some of that 

generosity to those who need it the most. No one—no one—should 

be hungry. And no one—no one—should be questioned about 

whether or not they are eligible for a $1.40 a meal. And this is very 

offensive to even have this discussion here right now. 

I want to ask, who represents the nonprofit? You, Mr. Adolphsen. 

What does your nonprofit do? 

Mr. ADOLPHSEN. Our nonprofit is a public policy think tank that 

focuses on welfare and health care issues. 

Ms. WATSON COLEMAN. Thank you. So did you all have any opinion on the tax bill, the tax initiative that was passed most recently? 

And if so, what was it? 

Mr. ADOLPHSEN. We do not engage in tax policy, but I think it 

is fair to say that, in part because of that tax cut, that work now 

pays like it never has before. 

Ms. WATSON COLEMAN. Do you have an understanding that the 

situation of work availability has a lot to do with the communities 

in which you live, the education which you have had, and the color 

of your skin or your ethnicity? 

We are having this Pollyanna discussion as if there is equality 

in this country. There has never been equality in this country. Inequality is at its absolutely highest level right now. 

So I am particularly offended to sit here and listen to either my 

colleagues or those who are testifying to suggest that there are peoVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:41 Sep 20, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\31270.XXX APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
98 

ple who are gaming a system at a $1.40 a meal when 1 percent of 

this country has gamed an entire economy. 

Ms. Dean, I want to thank you for the work that you do and for 

the information that you have shared with us. I know that you 

must agree that there needs to be better monitoring devices to ensure that those few who shouldn’t receive these benefits don’t receive these benefits. Do you have anything that you would like to 

contribute along that line? 

Ms. DEAN. Thank you for the opportunity. Actually, 2 years ago, 

I testified before a different set of subcommittees, as well as the 

House Agriculture Committee. 

We have suggested that States be given better access to some of 

the kind of data systems that were built for health coverage, 

healthcare.gov, that HHS has a big data system that we think 

would give States quick assess when they are talking to someone 

to verify what they are saying. 

We do support the proposal to create a National Accuracy Clearinghouse. We just have serious concerns about the way it has been 

proposed in the farm bill. 

I think also an increase in resources for fraud investigators, both 

at the Federal level and at the State level, is a welcome idea. Unfortunately, the farm bill didn’t do that. 

May I jump in on one point that was raised? 

Ms. WATSON COLEMAN. If you do it really quickly, because I have 

a question for Ms. Larin. 

Ms. DEAN. Absolutely. I just want to raise a point about the success that has often been touted about Kansas and Maine. I do 

think that often what is reported is what happened after the intervention, but there is no actual comparison data relative to what we 

would’ve seen in the absence of the intervention. 

When you compare employment and earnings rates post-intervention to a year prior, there is virtually no difference. I think that 

is really crucial in an evidence-based environment, to not pursue 

an approach without a robust assessment of the facts. 

Ms. WATSON COLEMAN. Thank you so much. 

Ms. Larin, I guess you are best to answer this question. You said 

that there is a certain percentage of these improper payments that 

were made. What percentage was that? And what percentage of 

those were determined to be fraudulent payments, as opposed to 

improper payments? 

Ms. LARIN. Improper payments and fraud are two completely different things. 

Ms. WATSON COLEMAN. I know that. 

Ms. LARIN. Right. 

Ms. WATSON COLEMAN. I’m not sure everyone does, but I know 

that. 

Ms. LARIN. Yes. So improper payments occur when a beneficiary 

either gets too much or too little. 

Ms. WATSON COLEMAN. So what percentage? I am asking a really 

specific question here. What is your knowledge of the percentage 

that are improper? And of that improper, what percentage is actually fraudulent payments? 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
99 

Ms. LARIN. We do not know. The only fraud rate that USDA 

measures is retailer trafficking, which does not cover recipient 

fraud, so we have no idea what the recipient fraud rate is. 

Ms. WATSON COLEMAN. Thank you. 

My time is up. I yield back. Thank you very much. 

Mr. JORDAN. I thank the gentlelady. 

The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WALKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Under the Obama administration, SNAP recipients went from 28 

million to 44 million. That is a 64 percent increase. The population 

under that same time increased by 6 percent. 

Ms. Dean, how do you explain that? What would be your reasoning for that kind of spike? 

Ms. DEAN. I have two reasons. 

First was the extraordinary economic downturn that occurred as 

the Bush administration was ending and the Obama administration was beginning. That was the primary driver of enrollment. 

But the second is that the share of eligible people was on the 

rise. So the program now serves, I believe, over 80 percent of eligible people relative to fewer than 75, so even if the economy improves, the program will be serving —— 

Mr. WALKER. Okay, what is the point of transition off such a program? I mean, do you have a plan or thought about how you would 

transition people back into the work environment? 

Ms. DEAN. I think what we have now, which is a growing economy and a low unemployment rate, is the best path. 

Mr. WALKER. Well, we have I know in our community and many others many wages starting at $13 to $15 an hour, and it is a problem to find people because of the level of some of these government 

benefits. 

My friends like to make this a humane argument, but what is 

humanitarian about keeping people trapped at this poverty level 

boggles my mind. 

I think we have failed the American people when we begin to 

perpetrate the idea that by adding people more to a program somehow creates a success. Our ultimate goal would be, how do we transition people off the government entitlement programs such as 

SNAP? 

Obviously, there are kids and there are family situations who we 

want to back up and support, but for many people, the able-bodied 

adults, the people that we are talking, it is a God-given, created 

ability that many people have different skills and unique talents. 

And when we put up roadblocks—to me, that is a travesty—to be 

able to encourage and to motivate people back into the work force 

—— 

Ms. DEAN. If I may —— 

Mr. WALKER. I am sorry. I don’t have time to respond right now. 

If I do at the end of the question, I will come back to you. 

Mr. Lipps, what is the total number of SNAP recipients for the 

last fiscal year? 

Mr. LIPPS. Forty-two million, two hundred thousand. 

Mr. WALKER. And what is the total estimated cost of benefits for 

those recipients? 

Mr. LIPPS. Sixty-three billion, seven million. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
100 

Mr. WALKER. Okay. For that large of a population, I am sure 

that USDA and/or maybe FNS has ways to prevent improper payments. Are there any methods or programs of identifying improper 

payments within USDA FNS? 

Mr. LIPPS. Yes, sir. FNS provides a lot of technical assistance to 

States, and they have a lot of training programs. Our quality control system is our measure of how well we are doing in improper 

payments. 

Mr. WALKER. Can you describe the current process or program 

by which the payments are identified? 

Mr. LIPPS. Yes, sir. So the quality control process is the issue 

that we did have a problem with States inserting bias into the 

process in years past. Prior to my arrival and continuing now, FNS 

has done a great job of revising that process both at the Federal 

and State level so that we will be able to report an error rate to 

you this year. 

Mr. WALKER. OMB recently tried to address the issue of improper payments with a National Accuracy Clearinghouse, the 

NAC, in Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Louisiana, and Mississippi. 

Has this program resulted in any significant reduction in dual 

SNAP participation? 

Mr. LIPPS. Yes, sir. It was only tested in a few States, so on the 

size of 40 million recipients. It is difficult to say what is significant, 

but we think that any ability to root out fraud in the program is 

significant, so we did recommend in the President’s budget that 

this be expanded nationwide. 

Mr. WALKER. Very good. How do you compare this to the current 

PARIS system? 

Mr. LIPPS. The National Accuracy Clearinghouse provides a lot 

of opportunity that PARIS does not. PARIS is not a real-time check 

on dual participation and has some other issues that can be fixed. 

Mr. WALKER. Fair enough. Thank you. If adopted, does FNS have 

an estimate for total savings across a 10-year period using the 

NAC, or the National Accuracy Clearinghouse? 

Mr. LIPPS. Yes, sir. The estimate in the President’s budget was 

roughly $1 billion over the baseline. 

Mr. WALKER. And I gave my word to Ms. Dean that I would come 

back if I had an extra question. I want to honor that, but let me 

preface it by saying this. Republicans are trying to be presented 

here as non-compassionate. I spent much of my life working the 

inner cities of Cleveland, New York, Baltimore. This is about hope, 

not judgment. This is about being able to help families and people 

find a way to fulfill their God-given gifts and skills and talents, 

with which we are all uniquely created. That is why we are passionate about this. 

How do we help? How do we transition this without continuing 

to create more and more government systems and adding millions 

and millions of people on those roles? 

I want to yield back. I have 30 seconds. I yield that time back 

to you. 

Ms. DEAN. I just wanted to say, I think the true measure of success is no food insecurity and no poverty. We tout enrollment in 

SNAP as, I guess, a step along the way to that, because it is so 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
101 

successful in addressing hunger and food insecurity, but the goal 

is a country without those two problems. 

Mr. WALKER. But when we see a spike from 28 million to 44 million, 64 percent, that ought to trouble us, not encourage just to say, 

hey, we are serving, as we have heard today, we are serving the 

American people. For able-bodied adults, there is a better way, and 

we must work to find it. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. JORDAN. I thank the gentleman. 

The professor from Maryland is recognized. 

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very kindly. 

First, I just want to say that I agree that all able-bodied Americans should be engaged in productive work and not sitting around 

all day tweeting or filing bankruptcy or watching TV. And as 

Chairman Jordan points out, that can get the rest of the population 

very angry, to see people who are not participating in a meaningful 

way in the work force. 

Now, the premise of some of the questions seems to be either you 

are collecting SNAP benefits, or you were working. And that puzzled me, because I always thought that working people could get 

SNAP benefits if they were otherwise eligible. 

Ms. Dean, can you clarify that for me? 

Ms. DEAN. You are absolutely correct. Unfortunately, too many 

jobs pay too little or offer too few hours, so we have millions of people who qualify for SNAP. About, of the working-age folks on the 

program, I think 65 percent include a worker of the able-bodied 

definition. 

Mr. RASKIN. All right, so I want to be clear about that. You are 

saying nearly two-thirds of the people who receive SNAP benefits 

are able-bodied working people who are, in fact, working but not 

making enough money to support their family in a way to avoid 

food insecurity? 

Ms. DEAN. Within that able-bodied age group. The number is 

even higher amongst families with children. Of course, if you look 

whether they were working before or after on SNAP, it is even 

higher. SNAP is there both as a form of unemployment insurance 

and a low-wage supplement. 

So again, when thinking about work interventions, it is important to think about who we are targeting, an individual who will 

rapidly reemploy within a month or so on their own and, therefore, 

spending money on expensive training might not be the best first 

solution. Is it someone who actually needs more robust intervention, or is there something else going on? 

Mr. RASKIN. But I was moved by Chairman Jordan’s instructive 

example at the beginning of two people going off to work, the third 

person sitting at home, watching TV, tweeting all day, whatever, 

and those people feeling uncomfortable or irritated about it. 

But in fact, because of the work requirement, that person is likely to get in trouble, if they are really ripping off the system, if everything is working right. It is more likely that one of the two 

going to work could be using SNAP benefits for their family. Is that 

right? 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
102 

Ms. DEAN. I think I gave the example of other folks in their 

workplace who might be earning lower wages and would benefit 

from the program. Yes, absolutely. 

Mr. RASKIN. Okay. But in any event, it is misguided for us to 

think of the collection of SNAP benefits as somehow opposed to 

work when, in fact, as you are saying, a majority of the people collecting SNAP benefits are working. 

Ms. DEAN. Yes, you are correct. 

Mr. RASKIN. Okay. So, Mr. Adolphsen, let me just ask you quickly, do you think that Americans have a strong work ethic? 

Mr. ADOLPHSEN. Yes, I think we are the greatest country in the 

world, and we are built on hard work. 

Mr. RASKIN. All right, good. Then we agree on that. Thank you. 

So I want to come back to what the work requirements are currently for people in the law. 

Ms. Dean, could you recite for us what the work requirements 

are for people who are nonetheless still applying for SNAP benefits? 

Ms. DEAN. Sure. There are two categories. 

The first is the population between 18 through age 59 without 

children under age 6 and who are not essentially receiving a disability check or are very ill. That group has to register for work, 

and they are the pool of people that States can obligate or offer job 

training to. 

States have a lot of flexibility on who they decide to enroll. So 

when Ms. Larin said only 200,000 were enrolled, that is not because the other group was refusing. It is because that’s the group 

that States are serving. 

The second group, a subset of that, is between the ages of 18 to 

49. They are subject to a 20-hour-a-week work test. They may not 

participate for more than 3 months out of any 3 years unless they 

are exempt, and that group is not offered a job training slot as a 

condition of work. States can, but the vast majority don’t. So we 

call it a time limit, not a work requirement. 

Mr. RASKIN. Okay. 

Ms. Larin, I wanted to come to you about a question, which is, 

States presently have the flexibility, as I understand, the discretion, to impose additional requirements on recipients for work. Are 

there any Federal restrictions on their ability to do that? What are 

some of the restrictions that States have imposed beyond the Federal requirements? 

Ms. LARIN. I am not familiar with individual States. 

Mr. RASKIN. Okay. I can research that separately. 

Ms. Dean, let me come back to you. I know that your think tank 

has worked on tax policy, and I have been able to benefit from that. 

Were there any work requirements imposed on the big tax bill that 

gave hundreds of billions of dollars to wealthy investors? Did we 

require them to prove that they were actually working, the way we 

require under the SNAP program? 

Ms. DEAN. I am not an expert on that subject, but I believe the 

answer to that is no. 

Mr. RASKIN. They could be collecting the income passively 

through corporate dividends and interest and so on. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
103 

Mr. JORDAN. Yes, but it is their income. I mean, it is sort of a 

fundamental difference. It is not the taxpayer dollars getting funneled through government. 

Mr. Adolphsen, let me just run through some basics here. 

What is the food stamp, overall, SNAP program population 

today? What is that number? How many people? 

Mr. ADOLPHSEN. Forty-two million. 

Mr. JORDAN. And has that increased or decreased in the last decade? 

Mr. ADOLPHSEN. That has increased. 

Mr. JORDAN. Increased from what to what? Do you know the 

numbers? 

Mr. ADOLPHSEN. Seventeen million in 2000 from 28 million in 

2008. 

Mr. JORDAN. A significant increase, right? How about in dollars? 

What are we spending on it right now? 

Mr. ADOLPHSEN. It has been as high as nearly $80 billion. It is 

at about $70 billion right now. 

Mr. JORDAN. And what was it before? Less than half of that? 

Mr. ADOLPHSEN. Less than half of that. 

Mr. JORDAN. All right. And then how many of that 42 million are 

in this category we keep talking about, able-bodied adults? 

Mr. ADOLPHSEN. Twenty million. 

Mr. JORDAN. Twenty million. And of those 20 million, how many 

are not working and yet are still receiving a benefit of that 20 million subset? 

Mr. ADOLPHSEN. Sixty-two percent, so a little more than 10 million. 

Mr. JORDAN. More than 10. So we have 10 million people of the 

42 million who are able-bodied and not doing anything to get the 

taxpayer benefit. 

Mr. ADOLPHSEN. That is correct. 

Mr. JORDAN. And then of that subset, how many are able-bodied 

adults with no kids who are not working and still getting the benefit? 

Mr. ADOLPHSEN. Sure. About 4 million, 75 percent don’t work at 

all, and about 3 million are in areas where that requirement —— 

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Raskin just said that is not the case. There is 

a work requirement now. But you are telling me there are 4 million 

people able-bodied, no kids, who are doing nothing and still getting 

taxpayer money. How can that be? 

Mr. ADOLPHSEN. Because of the waivers of that requirement. 

Mr. JORDAN. Because the States have waived it, right? And they 

are waiving it at a time when the economy is pretty good. In spite 

of the tax cuts that the other side keeps saying are bad, the economy is pretty good right now, isn’t it? 

Mr. ADOLPHSEN. It’s very good, and there are a lot of —— 

Mr. JORDAN. What is the unemployment rate right now? 

Mr. ADOLPHSEN. Under 4 percent, I believe. 

Mr. JORDAN. Isn’t that the lowest it’s been in like 18 years? 

Mr. ADOLPHSEN. Fifteen States have their all-time low. 

Mr. JORDAN. All-time low. And yet, we still have 4 million people 

with no kids, able-bodied, who could sit on the front porch and 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
104 

drink coffee and read the paper while everyone else is going to 

work, right? 

Mr. ADOLPHSEN. They could do that. 

Mr. JORDAN. They could do that. They may not be doing that. 

They could be tweeting, as Mr. Raskin points out. They could be 

watching TV. They could be doing that. But in our example, they’re 

sitting on the front porch, reading the paper, and drinking coffee. 

Mr. ADOLPHSEN. The average American male spends 21 hours a 

week watching TV or playing videogames. We are asking —— 

Mr. JORDAN. Well, I didn’t know there was that much sports on 

TV. That’s amazing. 

Okay, so, now, all we are saying is that, that group, those 4 million, should probably have to do something to get taxpayer dollars. 

That’s all we’re saying, right? 

Mr. ADOLPHSEN. That’s correct. 

Mr. JORDAN. What’s the average length of time someone is on 

food stamps today? How long are they on? Just take the general 

population. 

Mr. ADOLPHSEN. The overall population, about 7 years. 

Mr. JORDAN. Seven years. How about that 4 million who are 

able-bodied with no kids who aren’t working? How long are they 

typically on? 

Mr. ADOLPHSEN. For about 20 percent of that population, it is the 

same number. 

Mr. JORDAN. Seven years. So we have able-bodied people with no 

kids getting something from the taxpayer, not having to do anything, and they can do it for 7 years? 

Mr. ADOLPHSEN. If there is no work requirement, and they don’t 

go back to work. 

Mr. JORDAN. Would you support not only a work requirement, 

would you support a time limit? Like saying, you know what, if you 

are an able-bodied adult, we are going to help you do some kind 

of job training, some kind of work requirement, but if you are not 

willing to engage in that, there is a limited amount of time we are 

going to let you live off the taxpayer, not live off the taxpayer, get 

a benefit from the taxpayer if you are in an able-bodied adult not 

willing to work. 

Mr. ADOLPHSEN. Yes, that type of time limit has been very effective in the cash assistance program. 

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Lipps, would you support a time limit? 

Mr. LIPPS. Mr. Chairman, we would be happy to have a discussion with you about that. The administration doesn’t have a position on that at the moment. 

Mr. JORDAN. Ms. Dean, do you support time limits? 

Ms. DEAN. No, and I believe the numbers Mr. Adolphsen quoted 

include senior citizens and children. The average length of time for, 

say, someone who is 65 and —— 

Mr. JORDAN. But he also said, I asked him that general question, 

but I also asked him about the 4 million who are able to work who 

are in the category of 18 to 59. 

Ms. DEAN. They already face a time limit, 3 months out of 36, 

unless they live in a waived area, which covers about a third of the 

country right now. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
105 

Mr. JORDAN. Unless they live in a waived area. It’s kind of a big 

exception. 

Ms. DEAN. A third of the country. 

Mr. JORDAN. A huge number of the population. 

So I guess, are you for a time limit for everyone, not just —— 

Ms. DEAN. Absolutely not. 

Mr. JORDAN. And do you believe, Ms. Dean, do you believe deadlines impact behavior? 

Ms. DEAN. With my kids, that’s for sure. 

Mr. JORDAN. Yes, with everyone. They certainly do with Congress. Congress couldn’t get anything done if there wasn’t a deadline on something. So deadlines always impact behavior, but somehow we can’t have that for people receiving a benefit from the taxpayer? There can’t be a deadline? 

Ms. DEAN. I don’t think the jobs that are available today are paying or delivering —— 

Mr. JORDAN. You have to come to the Fourth District of Ohio, because I guarantee you they are. I know what it is like. Every single 

employer I talked to is looking for someone. There are help-wanted 

signs in every single business, and many of them pay very well. 

And frankly, what employers are most looking for is someone to 

show up. And if they will show up, they will give them the training 

to get them a job that does pay a lot more than—what was the example you used? The custodian worker at the school, a lot more 

than that. 

Ms. DEAN. But I think that is an area where perhaps you and 

the program Mr. Lipps mentioned and I have in agreement, which 

is training that is offered to help bridge the skills gap and to give 

employers the employees that they want I think is something that 

would be —— 

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Adolphsen, I have just a few seconds here. Is 

there an asset test for people who get food stamps? 

Mr. ADOLPHSEN. Generally, no. 

Mr. JORDAN. Generally, no. So just to sum it up for the taxpayer, 

we have seen a doubling, more than doubling of the food stamp 

population in the last decade, from $30-some billion to close to $70 

billion in spending. Of that 42 million who were in the food stamp 

program today, 15 million to 20 million are able-bodied adults, approximately 10 million able-bodied adults who are not working, and 

4 million of those have no children. And yet, they can stay on the 

program potentially 7 years. And we don’t even ask them what 

kind of assets they have in place. 

Is that all fair? 

Mr. ADOLPHSEN. That is fair. 

Mr. JORDAN. That’s why we have to change this program. 

With that, I recognize the gentleman from California. 

We have to go to this side, then we will come back to Mr. 

Grothman. 

The gentleman from California, then we will come back to the 

gentleman from Wisconsin. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I do feel the frustration on both sides here. I am old enough to 

look at criminal justice reform and see where we have come to 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
106 

some mutual agreements on how we should approach that in evidence-based research. 

I was in local government. I was very active in building a new 

juvenile hall for our county in the bay area. When we built it, we 

were told by the judges that it wasn’t big enough. I went out there 

recently, it is at 65 percent of capacity. I asked the juvenile probation officers, what happened? They said because we instituted 

largely nonpartisan, evidence-based research, including helping 

families who were falling through the cracks. 

So, Ms. Dean, it is very frustrating. I don’t think any of us disagree with the idea that would like people to be able to be self-sufficient. But we also know, I have sat in meetings in my district, 

very different from Mr. Jordan’s district, in the bay area, but I 

have sat in meetings with UC students who got 4.2s, got into the 

University of California, the best public university in the world, 

and they talk about housing problems but also food problems. 

So somewhere in here, we can make this system work. 

When I was in the Legislature in California, we were very low, 

and we still are low, in terms of our activity on SNAP. A lot of it 

was because the State and the counties didn’t want to deal with 

the bureaucracy. 

So how do we get this discussion turned around like we did with 

criminal justice reform? And we are not there yet, but we have 

come a long way to agreeing with what works, to have evidencebased research that is truly impartial, so that we give these people 

the support they need, so we get the results we all want. 

Ms. DEAN. I think the first thing to do is to wait for the results 

of the 10 pilots that the last farm bill funded. They should be coming back, I believe, within the next year or 2. Those were done on 

a very high-quality evaluation basis, in terms of random assignment. And they looked at different kinds of participants and different kinds of interventions, because then-Chairman Lucas and 

the folks on the Senate side wanted to have information before 

committing billions of dollars. 

But I think there is an extraordinary common interest around 

better job training that gives employers and employees what they 

want. That, I don’t believe, is under debate. 

The question is, is a one-size-fits-all, 20-hour rule for millions of 

people in thousands of jurisdictions around the country the right 

approach? And who does it put at-risk? 

So I feel there is a lot of common ground to pursue a conversation here. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. I appreciate that. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield the balance of my time to 

Mr. Raskin. 

Mr. RASKIN. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. 

Ms. Dean, let me come back to you for a second. Why would 

someone need SNAP benefits if they’re working, and they’re playing by the rules, and they’re going to work every day, and they’re 

packing their lunch and so on? Why would they still need SNAP 

benefits for their family? 

Ms. DEAN. A couple reasons. One might be that they have committed to work 35 hours to their employer, but their employer, in 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
107 

any given week, only offers them, say, 12 hours one week, 27 another. 

Mr. RASKIN. What job categories might that account for? 

Ms. DEAN. Retailer, home health aide, all kinds of jobs where the 

employer controls the hours, not the employee. They can’t take a 

second job, because they have to be available for the first one. 

And low pay. The reality is, eight bucks an hour still can qualify 

a family for SNAP. 

Mr. RASKIN. How many people lost their jobs after the 2008 

mortgage meltdown crisis, which accounted for a large part of the 

dramatic increase in people on SNAP after President Obama took 

office from—who was that? 

Ms. DEAN. President Bush. 

Mr. RASKIN. Yes, President Bush. 

Ms. DEAN. Mr. Raskin, I’m sorry, you may well know the answer. 

It was millions and millions. I don’t have the number. 

Mr. RASKIN. My recollection is that 11 million people lost their 

jobs. Something like 12 million people lost their homes. There was 

massive dislocation and poverty in the country. Obviously, that was 

the major cause for people going on SNAP benefits. 

And because we have a very strong work ethic, as I think we all 

agree, nobody is proud of that. But we are in a country that stands 

by its own people, and we take care of our own. If our people fall 

on hard times, we take care of them. 

Why do States create waivers to make the program go on longer 

or to create more relaxed requirements? 

Ms. DEAN. The Office of the Inspector General at USDA did a report on why States seek waivers from the three-month time limit. 

The first reason was that many of the States believe that this is 

a very harsh policy, and so they do it because they think the underlying policy is unfair, and they seek to waive unemployed workers 

from it. 

The second reason is the rule is incredibly complicated and errorprone. And not wanting to contribute to errors, they like to relieve 

as much of the State as they can. 

The third reason, and California is an example of this, is they 

want to run their own employment and training program. Again, 

they don’t want the one-size-fits-all mandate of the 20-hour rule. 

They offer alternative programs, granted, not across the State or 

for all the individuals, but they have their own approach. 

That generally explains through three main reasons. 

Mr. RASKIN. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

Mr. PALMER. [Presiding.] I thank the gentleman. 

The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. 

Grothman, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Thank you. 

First of all, I will point out, and I have to point this out to some 

members of our Ag Committee, too, I think there are many jobs in 

my district in which they will train you for the job. This idea that 

you need to go through some government agency to get job training 

before you can find a job is just preposterous. We have so many job 

training programs out there already, but the idea that we have to 

expect people to go through a formal job training program before 

they can find work, you have to get in the real world. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
108 

But since you guys are experts on these nutrition programs, why, 

wherever I go in Wisconsin or when I ask people in Washington, 

do they sell food stamps for $0.50 on the dollar? Could somebody 

give me an opinion why that’s so wherever you look? 

Mr. ADOLPHSEN. Congressman, it is pretty easy right now, in 

some States in particular that aren’t really looking for that type of 

fraud. For example —— 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Not fraud. Why is it being sold for $0.50 on a 

dollar? I mean, I really can’t figure this out, because, hypothetically, when you get these food stamps, it’s not that big 

amount. But wherever I go, you can buy them for $0.50 on the dollar whenever I ask. 

So the question is, why? It shows that there must be something 

so fundamentally wrong with this program that people are, in essence, selling a $20 bill for a $10 bill. But that’s what’s going on, 

right? 

Mr. ADOLPHSEN. We had one store in Maine that was giving 

$0.60 for dollar, and the store down the street that was giving 

$0.50 reported them because they were undercutting their competition. 

This is done so that they can turn the benefit into cash. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. I know, but there’s something wrong. You understand what I’m saying? If I have $20 in my wallet today, I don’t 

sell it for $10. It must mean there are so many food stamps floating around out there that people don’t need, for whatever reason— 

maybe they’re cheating on the system, maybe they’re going to the 

food bank. 

Could somebody tell me why you can again and again sell food 

stamps for $0.50 on the dollar just about everywhere? 

Mr. ADOLPHSEN. They’re using it for things other than food. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. That is apparent, but why wouldn’t you sell 

them for $0.90 on the dollar? Why is there this fire sale as people 

try to get rid of food stamps? 

Ms. Dean, do you have an answer for that, why, wherever you 

look, they’re selling them for $0.50 on the dollar? 

Ms. DEAN. Let’s not my experience, Mr. Grothman. Families use 

these benefits for food. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. When you ask people, say in low-income housing 

areas, or when you ask people at the convenience store or grocery 

store, how much they are selling, it’s always $0.50 on a dollar. 

It bothers me that so many people have who have set themselves 

up as experts on this program don’t know that that’s what goes on 

in this country everywhere. 

Do one of you other guys want to guess? Ms. Larin? 

Ms. LARIN. When we were looking at recipient fraud in 2016, 

what we heard is that some people were making very difficult 

tradeoffs between paying their rent and paying for food. And if 

they weren’t getting housing assistance, sometimes they would sell 

their food stamps or their SNAP benefits in order to get the cash 

for housing. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Do you talk to people who get into this housing, 

the landlords and that sort of thing, as to whether people are 

choosing between food and housing? 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
109 

Ms. LARIN. Yes, and landlords told us that they would take food 

stamps or SNAP benefits for rent. There are some people who are 

making those decisions. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. I would strongly suggest you guys get out and 

talk to more people. 

But I will give you another problem we have out there right now. 

Again and again, when it comes to low-wage jobs, I am having employers tell me that people either won’t work or are cutting themselves off at like 20 hours a week, because they are afraid they will 

lose their benefits. Of course, that just doesn’t mean SNAP. It 

means you begin to dig into your low-income housing. It means you 

begin to dig into your Medicaid, whatever other benefits are out 

there. 

Do you believe that the SNAP program is one of the reasons why 

so many employees say that I can’t take a rate raise, or I can’t 

work more than X number of hours a week? Is that one of the reasons? 

Ms. DEAN. If I may answer, no. The program has several earnings disregards that allow people to—basically, earning more results in largely monthly income. 

But I will say that H.R. 2 would reimpose a benefit cliff and take 

away one of the key earnings incentives in the program that allows 

people to earn their way up the ladder. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Could you guys guess as to why it is common for 

employers of people making minimum wage to 15 bucks an hour 

not want to make more money in our society? 

Mr. ADOLPHSEN. I would say the bigger problem, Congressman, 

is people not working at all. That is what we find in the data, is 

that they are not actually going to work, those able-bodied adults 

on the food stamp program. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Well, I will give you the answer, because my 

time is about up here. The answer is the earned income tax credit 

encourages you to work and make a little money but not a lot of 

money. That is why so many people want to make some money but 

not too much money, because when you make too much money, you 

lose not only your other benefits, but you lose your earned income 

tax credit, too. But there’s your answer. 

Mr. PALMER. In closing, I just want to make a couple points that 

we are having this discussion about the value of work, and during 

the worst depression in the history of the country, the Roosevelt 

administration set up a worker program that paid people, but they 

had to work. I think a lot of that was not just because they didn’t 

want to spend money. It was the dignity of work. Particularly at 

that time in our Nation’s history, no one, really, wanted to get a 

handout. They wanted to earn it. 

I think that is a big part of what we are talking about, is individual dignity. Even with the Clinton welfare reform bill, there 

were time limits on that. 

But though point is really this, and I think my colleagues and 

I would agree on this, that this country will never truly achieve its 

fullest potential until we are able to unleash the enormous talent 

and intellect and imagination of all of our people. That is the thing 

that concerns me more than anything else about where we are in 

terms of welfare, the millions and millions of Americans who have 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
110 

been trapped in that system. And the quality of all of our lives 

have been diminished because of that, because we are not able to 

enjoy the enormous talent that is trapped in that system. 

So I thank our witnesses, again, for appearing before us today. 

The hearing record will remain open for 2 weeks for any member 

to submit a written opening statement or questions for the record. 

Mr. PALMER. If there is no further business —— 

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chairman, could I have a closing remark as 

well? 

Mr. PALMER. The gentleman is recognized. 

Mr. RASKIN. Thank you very much. 

I just wanted to also try to close on a note of unity. I think all 

of us agree that we want people who are able to work to be working in a productive way contributing to our society. That means we 

need good wages and fair wages. I have always been a champion 

for the right of people to organize and to have collective bargaining 

in the workplace, and the minimum wage was a great historic triumph. 

I think it’s wrong that there are people who are working full 

time who can’t support their families without SNAP benefits, but 

I think we have to look at that as a key part of the equation of 

reducing SNAP payments to make sure that everybody is making 

not just a minimum wage but a living wage. 

Finally, I would hope that this whole discussion about the farm 

bill and about SNAP does not take us into an area where we are 

denigrating the work ethic of the American people, who I think are 

the hardest working people on Earth. And we are a people that’s 

committed to supporting our families, but we are also a people committed to supporting one another through the ups and downs of the 

economy. 

With that, I yield back to you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PALMER. I thank the gentleman. 

My final comment in that regard is that, with the economy growing the way it is, with the demand for labor, the things that will 

determine what you make are work experience and skill level. And 

I really believe that we are on a path to help people achieve higher 

skill levels, better education, and, once we get them into the work 

force, to be in a position where they can earn a livable wage. 

And I don’t want them to just earn a livable wage, and I don’t 

think my colleagues want that either. We want them to prosper, 

and the key to that is to be able to work. 

If there is no further business, without objection, the subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:41 a.m., the subcommittees were adjourned.] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(111) 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
112 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 78 here 31270.078
113 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 79 here 31270.079
114 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 80 here 31270.080
115 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 81 here 31270.081
116 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 82 here 31270.082
117 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 83 here 31270.083
118 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 84 here 31270.084
119 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 85 here 31270.085
120 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 86 here 31270.086
121 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 87 here 31270.087
122 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 88 here 31270.088
123 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 89 here 31270.089
124 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 90 here 31270.090
125 

Æ 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 91 here 31270.091