dr. lyman if i iowa -- if i may. you read granting safe the -- could lead to a net reduction in overall safety? >> yes, just to elaborate on that concern, the industry is pressing for generic decisions to be made on certain policy issues including the size of emergency planning zones for fans reactors and modular reactors, the level of security that is needed, whether or not the containment needs to be robust against large pressure increases and whether the number of operators needed to staff a nuclear reactor complex should be reduced. they want these decisions to be made haste on the assertion that advanced reactors are so much safer than current were actors

that we don't need these extra levels of production. our concern is that assertion is not always on a full enough audience evidence and experimental data to justify making those decisions so the net reduction, so there could be a net reduction in safety if exemptions and other relaxations in safety procedures are granted based on our presumption that a new reactors safer without a full examination. >> so mr. chairman the bill as a distracted is an assumption that there are inherent safety features built into advanced design reactors that make it safer automatically. that's a nice assumption to make and it's a nice assertion to make but that's going to be tested. we have to make sure that anyone additional potentially

successful safety feature interacts with the totality of the rest of the nuclear power plants in terms of assuming the plant is safe. we don't know that. it's an assumption built into the language of the bill so this just goes to the question and it is an 80-20 question. what are the issues that we have to deal with and 80% of it is going to still remain is there enough money for the nrc to do their job and have enough personnel asking all the right questions of having the right supervision and the fees are going to be reduced. are these new technologies actually inherently safer? we have to have the capacity to determine that. the public able to ask questions the industry has always tried to get the public house. after three mile island and after chernobyl and any other incidents that people don't trust the experts anymore. they want to be able to ask questions because these power plants are going into their

neighborhoods. you can't block off all areas of the country so these a vice been the historically the questions, always been historically the questions in my perspective public input is vital and should actually be strengthened that the new reactors should not the exempted from important safety requirements as a starkly have been required and the nrc budget should not be capped. these are the central areas. but the questions that we are going to have to answer in this legislation and is going to keep coming back to the same questions we have been asking for the last 70 years on technology. the questions don't change but we will be the ones that decide and i think you mr. chairman for having this very important hearing. we know one thing, that these power plants are now 20 to 40 years old and say that you need

less inspectors. you have to go to the doctor more the older you get. there are are more things that you can have go wrong thea lee get and to reduce the budget of aging power plants in densely populate areas we will have lower numbers of personnel, lower amounts of fees and revenues going and is totally contrary to how we think about it. there are issues in nuclear power plants that are the same as cholesterol going into the veins of older americans. they cause issues that require a lot of additional attention and to say that is not act or it, it just belies the reality of what we have learned about nuclear power plants in our country. i thank you for the courtesy mr. chairman at the additional time to question. >> think you senator markey. i will take my last round right now and you will be able to finish up senator carper. i just want to make the comment that this legislation does not

make assumptions. it sets forward a new process of a more transparent and effective process for the decisions you are talking about to be made and it definitely does not give any exemptions to any technology that puts the nrc directly in charge of improving and strengthening our safety. i would actually like to use my time to ask mr. merrifield and maybe mrs. korsnick to respond to that very issue. >> i think the nrc is going to be able to continue to meet its mission of appropriately looking at these technologies and ensuring that they are assured that they are safe. i think we will feel up to do so in a way which is risk in form such that it will be able to judge is there a need for a large emergency planning zone where the amount of radiation that is in that reactors may be less. >> this legislation does not

choose technology and it does not define standards. >> it does not set those put the nrc. the other point i would make its not as if these technologies are entirely new. indeed those of the advanced reactor tech knowledge these are being brought forward today were originally developed by the atomic energy commission and d.o.e. during the 50s and 60s so there's a significant amount of research information available to demonstrate the safety of these reactors today and justified the nrc making changes which would appropriately tailored their regulations for advanced reactor technologies consistent with public health and safety. >> thank you. mrs. korsnick. >> thank you senator. a couple of comments. the books representing at fans reactors none of us are injured using in -- interest in reducing safety margins. the bill that provides the licensing process informs that

licensing process that the safety margins might be met in a new and different way with this innovative tech knowledge and that needs to be knowledge through the licensing process. we are not in any way of lowering the bar or lowering the standard. quite frankly we are meeting and maybe exceeding the standards just in a new way. the other item i want to mention and i appreciate senator markey is not here but the mandatory hearings that were mentioned earlier, these are uncontested hearings. that means the public does not participate so these hearings that are referenced in this bill and factor held between the commission and the staff on construction permitting combined license application. it's not cutting the public out of any conversation. we are interested in the public being involved in dialogue. >> if there's any public interest there can be, the bill allows for hearing to be held. >> absolutely and there are many ways at the public can request a hearing on an application being bald. this doesn't take away any of the public engagement and involvement. i just wanted to make clear

because i feel a different impression was left with the committee. >> thank you very much. senator carper. >> thank you mr. chair previewer doing a great job by the way. i look forward to the day when you chair us more often. >> tanks for that too unless the worse i can be chairman. [laughter] >> that we would have to negotiate. >> i've got an old car. when i step down as governor became a senator i went out with my oldest son chris who was then 12 to buy a new car and we drove porsches and must thanks incorporate us. we bought a minivan. he said it was bait and switch. we usually took the trainer drove back and drove my 2001 town & country minivan and along the way the odometer crossed 419,000 miles.

when i got my minivan there were warranties that needed to be fixed so we had a warranty to pay for that stuff. we spent no money on it. in recent years to be honest with you i spent more money on my minivan. ..

that is optimism. i'm mr. glass halfful. if i'm a utility and paying 90% of the costs of rung nrc and i see the nrc have fewer reactors to monitor, we're not -- why does the united states need all this money? your budget is down $5 million. that not very much. maybe you can help me with this. in terms of costs, that's not cheap. you have closures, sometimes we think that -- like, if i were our ford explorer, we were going to decommission it and we took it to a place and in one minute

they squashed my car, my explorer, and that was it. they gave me a check. doesn't work that way with these newer power plants and it's an expensive process to decommission them. so fukushima, all these recommendations that we're implementing and make something progress here but we're not there yet. we have advanced technology and people with brilliant ideas that are saying, look at my idea, and takes money to pay for all this. so after actually thinking about it, my sense is that what you're asking for in the budget is not unreasonable, not unreasonable, but i realize we're interested in how to get best results for less money. you guys have to sharpen your pencils a little more.

>> senator, i appreciate the analogy to your mini van, of course. >> don't ever tell my life i bought a six-year battery. she would die. >> -- our plan is much more complex but to your point the nrc is reducing costs. if you look at the trend from 2014, again, we're reducing costs, our fiscal 2017 request is below our 2016 request, and we will be enabled to reduce our fiscal '17 appropriation request by at least another 31 million. so significant reductions and still not done. lowering our costs will translate to reduce fees, both the year fees and the annual fees to this industry we regulate. so while there may be a delay or reaction, there is a commitment

to reducing our fees, and it is tangible and i believe the industry will recognize those reduced costs. >> thank you. one more last quick question. talking about work force and that sort of thing. as the budget is reduced in the future to reflect reduced work load, can you talk about the ramifications of cutting nuclear engineers today which might be needed for tomorrow's nuclear -- advanced nuclear applications? >> senator, thank you. one of the more significant challenges any organization experiences, one that is human capital dependent, dependent on people to get work done and that's nrc. is to manage cost reductions, reductions in staffing in a way that you retain your core capability to fulfill your mission. of course, ours is safety and security. so we're working very closely as a leadership team, using a strategic work force plan to make sure the work we have now,

the work we predict in the future will have the right people, in the right place, at the right time, with the right skills, and again, that is what our commitment is, and we're working very closely to get that done. including nuclear engineers who are just one competence that we need within the nrc. >> thank you. >> senator kelly, can i make a comment about plant aging? >> really sort. >> 73 of the nuclear power plants in the united states have sought and received an extension to run for 60 years. that allowed the utilities invest larges amounts of money to make shower the planes are up to date and fully meet safety requirements imlike your minivan they have been making investments look the way to make sure -- just like the air force's planes are in the right shape to do their mission. nuclear power plants are doing the same here in the u.s. >> mr. chairman, want to make

sure i get my six years worth out of that battery i just bought. >> that would be 83 licenses. >> thank you very much. >> 11 under review and six expected to come in. >> thank you. >> the nrc is a bit more successful than that. >> thank you for that clarification, thank you for being with us. let's continue to look at the 80% and see if we can build on that. >> thank you, senator. appreciate your constant focus on trying to find solutions and get to that 80%. i agree with that. dr. lymon do you feel you have made your comments. >> i think we have heard enough from him. >> actually -- >> go ahead. >> very short time to explain why we think some of the language in the bill could potentially be interpreted as a reduction in safety standards. that primarily has to do with

the language, risk and foreign performance based, and my experience with the nrc and its attempts to implement what it calls risk informed regulation often implies trying to justify what is called a reduction of unnecessary conservativism, and unnecessary conservativism means different things to different people. so our concern is that this bill would put pressure on the nrc to develop processes that would essentially force them to accept lesser standards for the experimental data for the analytical work needed to support an advanced reactor application in particular if you have designs based just on paper studies, the risk analyses do not have operational data to support the -- to actually validate those studies, and so there's a concern that

overreliance or -- or overconfidence in paper studies that are insufficiently validated to meet, let's say, less restrictive safety criteria, could lead to an overall reduction in safety. so that's our concern. also on the question of innovation, mr. murray just behindded out that many of the racketer types that have been -- that are currently being considered were developed by the atomic energy commission decades ago. we agree with that. i would submit that the argument could also be used, say, at the nrc, has considerable expertise and experience in those reactor types and we think the concern that the nrc is not ready to license nonlight water reactors irbadge rated for that reason because the are all technologies -- >> if i may respond just quickly.

when i was on the commission, we did create about five million in funding to better understand pebble bed reactors, but molten salt reactors and others are significantly different from what the nrc has experienced so they need additional funding and resources to bridge the gap. >> thank you. nope we opened up some issues that everybody would like to jump into more and i would, too but i believe we just had a vote called or will shortly have a vote called, and so we're going to have to wrap this up. do want to remind all of the witnesses that senator whitehead asked you to each -- whitehouse asked you to respond in writing to the question about the safety implications of the legislation on the nrc's capacity to protect safety and its regulatory structure, and i encourage you to respond. each of the senators may have further questions and it's

customary for them to smidt those in writing, and since this legislative hearing -- this is a legislative hearing and we expect committee action on senate bills 2795 next week, i'm asking our senator and committee staff to provide those questions regarding the bill to the majority office by 4:00 p.m. tomorrow on friday, and i'm asking the witnesses to be sure to respond in writing by 5:00 p.m. on april 25th. monday, april 25th. i know that's right short time but wore going we moving ahead so if you can respond to those questions quickly, we would appreciate it. all questions for the record regarding the general topic of advanced reactors will be due win the usual two-week deadline. to our witness is want to thank you all for coming and sharing your views, and this hearing is adjourned. >> thank you, senator.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]

>> agriculture secretary tom vilsack is part of a discussion on hunger and food assistant programs. you'll hear about changes to the supplemental nutrition program known as s.n.a.p. this is an hour and 20 minute eventhold be the brookings institute. [inaudible conversations]

>> good morning. i'm bob reuben, and my sole assignment is to welcome all of to today's hamilton discussion of food security. having said that let me make two comments. number one, the hamilton project began about ten years ago, and our purposes from the beginning would support policy development around the country and promote seriousness of purpose in policy dialogue, and i think those purposes, policy development and most particularly seriousness of purpose in policy dialogue have become every more important as what goes for policy dialogue in our country has descended into insidology and politics and partisanship, and our commitment is to try to do our little part in keeping alive that

seriousness of purpose. from the beginning our bedrock objectives with respect to economic policy have been growth, broad-based for tis pacing in benefits of growth and economic security, and it's our view they are interdependent and they can reinforce each other. in that context, food insecurity in this the richest country in the world, is not only morally wrong, but it is also a serious impediment economic growth. when food insecurity affects children, which as you'll see in the hamilton project's facts which we hand out is happening far too frequently in this country. we're reducing the prospects for

our economy for decades head as will as being involved in a morally outrageous situation for this the richest country in the world. today's discussion is about the startling number of people who are still experiencing food insecurity in america today. the supplemental nutrition assistance program, s.n.a.p., which is designed, as you well know to address this issue, and recommend that policy changes to make the program more effective. let me recognize dianne, the director of the hamilton project, on leave from northwestern university, to head our project to direct our project. christian mcintosh, the managing director of the hamilton project, and ryan nunn, the policy director of the hamilton project for the work they've done in creating the intellectual construct for the meeting and also developing low

jess sticks -- logistics for our meeting. we'll begin with dianne framing the discussion also discussing the hamilton fact sheet, which i mentioned before, which i think you'll find both interesting and deeply trouble until terms of the magnitude of the problem this country is experiencing in terms terms of food insecurity. then we'll turn to an exchange between the two distinguished panelist, tom, the outstanding secretary of agriculture in president obama's administration, and the former governor state of ohio -- of iowa, rather. ohio is a nice state, too -- well, used to think so. iowa is a nice state, too. governor of the state of ohio, and bob grinstein, founder and president of the -- and bob is the unusual person who is both a

fervent advocate for policies to help the poor, and also a very serious budget analyst, and when i first got to know bob in the beginning of the clinton administration, when they said this is a man who cares enormously about the -- and understand the practicingmatics of the put and is serious about dealing with both. thank them for join us greatly look forward to this discussion. dianne, the program is yours. >> thank you, i'd also like welcome you to you hamilton's discussion on food insecurity. i'm going to described the extent of the problem and potential solutions and this comes from our document they we released today. 12 facted about food insecurity and s.n.a.p., released today by the hamilton project. in 2014, one in seven households were food insecure, meaning at some point during the year, they had difficulty providing enough

food for all of their members, due to a lock of resources -- lack of resources, 15 million children, or one in five children in the united states, live in food insecure households. even more troubling in 2014, one in 20 households experienced very low food security, meaning they suffered one or more periods during the year in which food intake of household members was reduced and normal eat can pattern were disrupted because of lack of money for food. as you can see own the chart the rate of food insecurity across children adulted or the elderly, all three spiked during the great recession and remain elevated today. in every state, higher share of children than adults live in food entour households. as you can see from the map in every state, more than one in ten children lives in a food entour household in nine states the share is one in four children living in a food insecure household. let me tell you mow about the

characteristics characteristics characteristics of the food insecure households the vast majority or working household. 85% of householdded with food insecurity report at least one earner in 2014. also note that these food entour households are slightly more likely to be headed bay married couple than by a single mother. another fact about food insecure households is that household with a teenager are more likely to suffer food insecurity. what many parents know from their own experience is also true empirically. teenages eat more and cost more to feed. it's true. spending on food increases when there's a teenager in the house. unfortunately, food assistance benefit does not increase commensurately. s.n.a.p. benefits don't change and in fact teenagers are less likely to participate in school meals programs. this arched add up to higher rates of both food insecurity and very low food security

status among household withteenagers. furthermore, the s.n.a.p. view that annual rate of food insecurity i started with masks the extent of the problem because many families cycle in and out of food insecurity across consecutive years. when we compare households that are food insecure this year to the share that were food insecures this year or last year then, project calculate 40% more households were food insecure at one point across a two-year period than were food insecure this year. please note that even temporary periods of food insecurity may cause lasting negative impacts on children. furthermore troublingly, the greatest food insecurity extended even higher up in income distribution. full lay third of feuden secures household have annual incomes more than twice the poverty line, more than $48,000 a year for a family of four. this is generally above the reach of social safety net programs like s.n.a.p.,

subsidized school meals and earned income tax credit. another third of insecure loud host are one and to times the poverty line. notice that when families experience hunger or things related to that, showing in the light green here, it's much more concentrated among the very poor. fortunately a robust social safety net can help alleviate these problems. 2012, the most recent year available, after adjusting for survey underreporting we fine that s.n.a.p. lifts 10 million people out of poverty, including nearly five million children. this impact is nearly equivalent to the impact of the epc and the child tax credit. researchers are just start took understand the magnitude of the importance of these programs. especially on the long-term well-being of children. in a study published this month in the american economic review, my co-authors and i followed the cohorts that were children when s.n.a.p., then called the food

stamp program, was originally introduced as part of the war port bathroom us the program was rolled houston our county by county we compare eyes ohio similar children living in neighboring counties in the same state and different ages who differed in their access to the program. and then we can trace the impact of access to the program across the children's lifespan now that they're adults. we find children had access to then food snatch program, today s.n.a.p., were 18 percentage points more likely to graduate from high school in adulthood those with childhood access were healthier, as measured be the likelihood of being obese, having diabetes and heart disease or related measures. women in particular saw improvements from the program with increase in their adult economic outcomes including employment, earnings, and related measures. as a result we argue nat s.n.a.p. should be thought 60 as an investment in children and not merely charity. there are many things we can do

to improve the reach of our existing food support program. and i look forward to the conversation between bob and secretary vilsack that will explore these. therer many children who are food insecure and el available for programs like school meals, wic and s.n.a.p. but for some reason are not participating he also has evidence that increases in benefits, substantially impact food security. for example, it's long been more than that children's food instituter and very low food security status spikes when school is not session. the department of agriculture fielded pilot program with an exceptionally strong research design component to test how additional summer feeding benefits. a 60-monthly food voucher of the summer reduced food insecurity in children to 20%, and very low

food insecurity status by 35%. finally, evidence shows that s.n.a.p. improve this broader financial well-being of householdes, not only reducing food insecurity but by shoring up resources available for food, also reduces the likelihood that the household will fall behind on major exposes like housing and utility and are less likely to skip an a needed trip to the doctor. now that the stage is set, i'm going to invite bob and secretary vilsack to stage for their important conversation on policies to alleviate foot insecurity. a quick housekeeping note. under your chairs you'll find note cards and at the end we'll open it up for questions and answer but the we'll have people walking up and down the aisle. you can write your question down on a note card, preferably legibly, and then we'll hand them to the moderator and he'll ask questiones. so secretary and bob? welcome.

[applause] [inaudible conversations] >> good morning, everybody. i want to thank hamilton for having a forum on this very important topic, and there's so many interesting aspects of this that, mr. secretary, want it to dig right in. i would like to start by asking you a little bit about what you see as the role of the secretary of agriculture with respect to

these programs and these issues. let me give a little preface. i remember when i came to washington in the early '70s the secretary of agriculture was earl butts. some people in the room obviously remember him. had the honor in serve neglect food nutrition service in the carter administration, but during the 40-plus years if have followed this the pattern has been with the secretary is a immorsed in agriculture policy and for most secretaries the food assistance programs are off to the side, they're secondary, tertiary. bob bergland was different in that regard. but you, mr. secretary, for me you have broken the mold. i've never seen a secretary of agriculture for whom food assistance, hunger, food security, insecurity, has been a

central as it's been for you. could you talk a little bit about how you see within the department, for you as the secretary, the importance of these programs and the issue of food insecurity. >> i think there's personal reason for this and then there's a policy reason. the personal reason is when you start out life as i did in an orphanage, the one thing that you know about yourself is that you are either well fed or not well fed and i can tell you i have a picture when i was adopted of a very well-fed child. so i know that in the orphanage i was taken care of and i think we have lot of kids out there who are struggling in families, especially in rural areas. rural poverty among children is higher than you expect. one out of rural kid lives in an impoverished home and it's part of the responsibility thereof at the department offing a call too toy cake of folk with accomplish and folkness rural america. as a large part of our budget so

we want to make sure it's operating properly and functioning the way it should, and unfortunately, in today's world, these programs come under attack. they get mischaracterized. people who are taking advantage and are benefited from these programs are often demonized, and i see it also my responsibility to make sure the american public understands precisely who it is that's getting these benefits and why. and how it benefits not just the families receiving s.n.a.p., but all of us. i think bob ruben eluded to the fact this is building an economy. hung kids noter prepared for the competitive environment they'll grow up in. the reality is families struggling with food insecurity have to make very difficult choices and impacts the future of kids and the future of the country. so when you combine that aspect with our school lunch program,

where we're trying to improve the quad and knew television central value of the program where the kids are well-fed, not just fed, and it's an important responsibility for the department of agriculture and the persons in charge of that department. so from a personal reason, from a policy reason, a budget reason, it makes sense to pay attention to this, and in this climate in particular, it does require a series of champions to make sure the person public understands precisely how they benefits' and why we have these programs. >> you have particular my been a champion of improving access to the programs by poor people who are eligible for them, that have been left out of them. under your tenure as secretary, the percentage of people eligible for s.n.a.p. who actually receive it, is at its highest level in the program's history. think over 80% of the people -- >> 85%. >> 85%, and in the child nutrition flint with community

eligibility, you're latest innovation is working with states to use medicaid data to -- as well as s.n.a.p. data to identify children eligible for free oar reduced price school meals who aren't getting it. can you talk about the emphasis you have placed on improving access? >> well, when we first started the process we took a look at how the states were administering the s.n.a.p. program. the reality is this is a partnership between the federal government and state governments. the states have the responsibility to administer the program. some states dade better job than others and we saw some states where at the participation rate was in the low 50%. which meant that nearly 50% of eligible people in a state were not getting the benefits they were entitled to receive, and the con against their families were pretty dire. so we started a concerted effort to make sure people understand at the state level their responsibility to make it easy for people to apply, make it easy for people to understand

their benefits. we started to provide information in spanish, multiple language, and we saw over time, with some pressure on some individual governors, that we saw a spike from 72% overall participation to 85. the one place where we have not yet figured out how to crack the nut is with senior citizens, and the reality is that participation rate there is only 41%, i think lot of it has to do with how seniors perceive the program and how difficult we have made it for seniors. the reality is we don't really need to be checking income levels of seniors on a regular basis because the fact is, if you're 85 years old, your income is pretty set. you're probably living on a social security check, maybe small retirement income. that's not going to change. so we're look new england at ways in which we can make it a little easier for seniors to get into the program and stay in the program to get that number up.

and i think we'll have some success of the course of the next nine months and hopefully the next administration will see the importance of this. on the school lunch program, a the reality is a lot of the school districts have kids coming from impoverished neighborhoods and we require quite an administrative burden for the schools to get kids free and reduced lunch etch we expect a second greater will take an application home with them in their backpack and they'll tomorrow take it out. give is it to their parents, their parents disclose information they may be -- it may be hard for them to disclose, how low income. it has to then be returned with the second grater, the student had to give it to the teacher, at the teacher had to gift to that administrative folks. the reality is that doesn't happen as frick live as it should and kids are left out.

if you have a disproportionate number of poor families, wife go through the process? the reality is most kid bill we eligible for lunch. so we're now seeing over 18,000 schools, millions of kids who otherwise would not have received assistance, are now receive assistance, and not just in schools. it's also in child care centers. 90,000 child care centers are benefiting. so it's an important program and an important tool to make sure kid get the food they need to be as successful as their talents take them. >> i'd like to us get back to community eligibility, but turning back for a little bit to s.n.a.p., so, you and i have been talking a little bit just a few minutes ago before the event started berth in degree of cynicism in the country about among other things government

and its ability to help. i remember back in the late '60s when teams of doctors went into a appalachia and the deep south and found rates of child hunger, malnutrition and nutrition related conditions akin to those in some third-world countries, and then the medical researchers went back in the late '70s, after in the intervening decade we had a national food stamp program implemented. president nixon helped lead the way nor national benefit standards, and the researchers said something to the effect of, where before we saw large numbers of children with sunken eyes, swollen bellies, we don't see them anymore and the main reason is the food program. they had a sign that says flood stamps does more to lengthening and strengthen the lives of people than any other program.

when we look at the data today, diane -- it's fact number night your report -- you talk bet the long-term effects, even among some -- improvements not just in education but employment and earnings, in adulthood, and the latest data, i think, show that s.n.a.p. lifts about 10 million people out of poverty, about five million children, each year. that's tied with the been earned income credit and the child credit. it's more than anything else except social security for the population in children and more children lifted out, even nonsocial security, and i think no program does as much to reduce deep poverty among children, and those'll half the poverty line, is s.n.a.p. so, how do we -- i don't think this is widely understood. the still hear the attacks, the program.

is a hammock. whereas dianne, your work, as reflected in fact number eight, indicates really the reverse. it improves kids' life chance rather than trapping them in a hammock. not widely understood. what do we do to better communicate these important findings? >> well, i think first of all it's making sure that americans understand precisely who is receiving s.n.a.p. i think there's a tendency to think most of the people receiving s.n.a.p. are gaming the system, but when you explain to people, is a do often, that 85 parts of s.n.a.p. by-riz are either children -- by-riz are children, center citizens, people with severe working disability's working with children, they have different attitude about the program. so first educating people on who actually receives s.n.a.p. secondly, making sure they understand this asupplementat nutrition assistance program.

nobody can survive on s.n.a.p. benefits. the reality is they're not that much in the benefit that would allow a family of four buy all their groceries for a month, and we taught look at how we calculate the benefits for s.n.a.p. we base it on a food plan. that food plan hasn't been adjusted or examined for quite some time, and i think if we did examine it we would find that the benefit is probably inadequate for the purpose of the program. so, i think we also need to point out that the benefits that this program has to people outside of the program. so, as we look at, for example, agriculture, and we look at low prices, the reality if more people can go into a grocery store and buy more foods that mean is they're going to buy more food. over 90 parts of s.n.a.p. benefits are redeemed within 30 days. so the reality is people are able to buy more, which means that folks have to produce more, have to process more, have to truck more, have to ship more, have to package more, have to

shelf more, have to sell more. all of those are jobs. we need make sure that people understand the economic benefits to the community as a whole by having these programs. one of the things i often to say to people in this country we take our stability for granted in this country. yes, we have partisan differences in the sometimes get pretty passionate but the reality is we're a relatively stable nation. one of the reason s we are is because we don't have many, many, many hungry people. we have food insecure folks which means at some point in time in that month they may be hungry but we don't have anywhere near the level of deep hungerow see in countries with great dissatisfaction. so this provides, i think, stability in our society. so, marketing these programs. talking about it. not being defensive about it. and basically going into farm bureau meetings, into business

meetings and explain to business leaders, agricultural leaders the benefits the programs to the country and to themselves, as a way of making sure the understand that there is a significant benefit. now, recent research also shows that kids on s.n.a.p. have better health outcomes. so we're all concerned about healthcare costs. we want to see a transition from a sick care system to wellness system. wow can't get to a wellness system unless you have adequate nutrition so there's an tint to talk about the impact that s.n.a.p. has on improved halve outcomes, reducing healthcare costs. so there are multiple ways of marketing the program and making sure people understand it's not really a welfare program per se. it's really a program that makes sure that every one of our kids, every one of our seniors, every one of our folks who are working hard but just having a hard time making it, have enough to basically keep themselves going,

and this issue of senior citizens, i want to make sure everyone understands this. it's in our best interests for the senior to be well fed, because if they they're going to go to the doctor fewer times and not have the healthcare consequences either. but all of us benefit from the program and i think it's important for progressives to be a bit more vocal about this, and a bit more willing to inform people about what this program is and isn't. also an issue of fraud. oh, my, driveouts crazy. people say there's a lot of fraud in this program. the fraud rate is 1.3%. one of the lowest of any federal program, the fraud and error rate combined is less than five percent, which is the lowest it's ever been, ever. so this is not a situation where this program is being taken advantage of. there are from time to time situations but most often those situations are dealt with.

so, it's a good program, and we need to be proud of it. we ought not to be defensive about it. >> a much dramatically smaller rate of fraud than the statistics show we have in the tax code with respect to people -- people don't like to talk about this -- but business income, the degree of business income that's never reported. you compare it to the degree of income in the s.n.a.p. program, this is a night okay comparison. >> i like to talk to our farm plans about the fact they s.n.a.p. fraud rate is lower than in the crop insurance fraud >> i'm sure that's popular. >> it makes a point is that we have to be careful about generalizing about a program based on one or two news broadcasts about an eagreous situation, bus are eagreous

situations in at love 0 federal programs. >> i want to pick up on something you said. you were talking about how the benefit levels really based on a formula set many years ago. as i recall it goes back to the '60s we had something called the economy food plan, then it was sort of renamed the thrifty food plan, but for people who don't know, the maximum food stamp benefit level for people with no other disposable income equals the cost of that thrifty food plan in the previous june, i think it is, and then if you have some income the benefit is reduced. so, that food plan was designed many decade ago when the norm was that mothers stayed at home. it's based on buying a lot of raw ingredients and cooking food

from scratch. today, we expect mothers, poor mothers with children, we expect them to work. what we still have a food plan in place that kind of assumes they don't dianne, i think you have a paper looking at this that you'll be releasing may 23rd? >> that's right. >> so i'm putting in a plug for this event on may 23rd. hamilton is going to come back to this issue and look at it. when we look at the s.n.a.p. program, i think you and i and many others were struck at how enormously responsive it was in the great recession. i was startled when i looked at the figures on how much less poverty -- the measures that count s.n.a.p. -- how much less it was in the deepest recession since the great depression than one would have otherwise realized and you dig

into the numbers. the enormous responsiveness of s.n.a.p. had to lot to do with that and of course, as we mentioned earlier, we have national benefits standards but before they came into effect, around 1971, we had some states that were cutting people off the program who -- people who worked when their incomes reached 50% of the poverty line. so this is a leadin to something i want to ask you about. ever increasing debate on poverty. the speaker of the house, paul ryan, is elevating poverty, which i think is really welcome. we ought to have a vigorous debate. but in the summer of 2014 he rolled out a plan called an opportunity grant, that would take 11 programs, including s.n.a.p., and allow states to kind of merge them into one big funding stream. we used to call this a block grant. think the speaker qualifies it's

merged spending dream. it's the same thing but a state gets a fixed dollar amount and could -- money wouldn't have to be used on food assistance. it could be. it would be up to the state. it could be used for any of a broad array purposes. there would no longer be a national benefit standard or structure there wouldn't be automatic responsiveness in recession. you were a governor for two terms. i'd be interested in your sense. would this be a good move for the s.n.a.p. program are and for in particular its purposes, helping all families or is it a step back? >> do you have respect to speaker he has never been a governor to doesn't know how governors think. the reality is that when you have a block grant, it basically will fund your priorities, not necessarily the nation residents needs. -- the nation's needs, and part

of my skepticism about this is -- emanates from the program that we have with employment and training and s.n.a.p. that's another thing that people don't realize. there are limitations on how much people -- how long people can receive s.n.a.p. if they're able bodied without dependents. and these limitations are quite severe. you're able bodied you have to be work organize receiving training edded of indication for a certain period of time each among or your limited to three months of benefits every 36 months. we give states 100% federal momentum. last year it was $320 million. we say to states here's $32 million. your job is to take that money and connect the work opportunities that are being created in an improved economy because unemployment is coming down, jobs created you. link the jobsout know are being created in your tsay state with the s.n.a.p. beneficiaries and give them an opportunity to work their way out of s.n.a.p. you would thick that every

governor, every conservative governor, would say this is great. last year, $92 million was unspent by governors. this is 100% money. this is not requiring a match. on the part of states. this is 100% money. and 92 million of is was unspent. and yet you have governors at the same time saying, we need reduce s.n.a.p., we need to get these people working. so when i hear people talk about block grants if a have concerns what is going to happen with the resource, how they're going to be utilized and what the oversight is going to be and i honestly will tell you, if you or two block grant this program, you would have nowhere near the satisfaction in terms of the ability to get money to people quickly, the ability to administer this program fairly easily, and 85% participation rate, would guarantee you, you would not have 85% participation

rate and you would have some serious consequences from a block grant it would not be used nor purposes f which it was intended. it would be used for the pet project, the pet idea. i'm all for innovation. i'm all for tryings new things. that's why we put $200 million in the farm bill to say to governors, hey, if you want to be innovative about connecting people with employment and training, here's an opportunity. apply for this money, let's see what you can come up with, and if you come up with a great idea we'll be happy to put more money behind it. we'll see. we have ten states participating in this effort. we'll see what they come up with. but i will tell you that i think block granting the programs -- my governor colleagues probably not be happy with this answer -- but do not, do not tell me that states are going too use every dime of that appropriately. talk about states being the laboratories of democracy. they're the laboratories of democracy with federal money. people forget that. it's not state money that goes

into these great experiments. it's federal dollars. and there's often not the credit that the federal government should get for investing in these innovations. so i'm leery about the block grants, just simply because i haven't seen governors step up. i alluded earlier when we came into 2009 there were states -- a little over 50% of eligible people were actually receiving s.n.a.p. because that governor, that particular administration, did not care enough to make sure that people knew about these benefited. did not care enough to make sure the bureaucracy was getting information out in language that people could understand. did not care enough to sim police identify the process. so, -- simply identify the place so i'm skeptical. >> one little fact that is consistent with your observations. if you tech at the block grant established in 1996 under the

welfare law, in the law, its core passport are employment, child care and cash assistance for poor families. if you look at the latest data the states have provided to hhs, only 50% of tanf dollars go for the three core purposes. the other 50% have been dissipated all over state budgets. sometimes hard to find out where it's going in some indicates states were able to take the federal dollars dollars and sube them for state dollars previously being spent on a low income service and then the freed up dollars can go wherever you want. >> that's the game that's played. or you disproportionately provide administrative expenses out of these programs. there are a mustitude of budget games you -- multitude of budget games to play and that's why it's important for the be a partnership between the federal government and states because frequently we come in and view what the states are doing, and if they're not doing what

they're supposed to do be doing, we make them pay the money back, adjust and change their programs. if you have block grant this money, you're going to lose control of it and you're not going to see the benefits from it. >> a minute ago you actually anticipated my next question. can we talk fore just a moment about the work demonstrations and in particular the requirement that you mentioned for people aged 18 to 50, who aren't disabled and who aren't raising dependents. so, interesting history here that it find most people don't remember. when the 1996 welfare law, which is where this requirement comes from, was being written, and the final bill had been put together by republican congress at the time, and it was going through the final time. when it got to the house floor owl of a sudden an amendment was off everrerred not anticipated

by the bill's authors and the amendment was one to say, for these people age 18 50, they could only get snap for three months while unemployed out off every three years and the amendment's lead sponsor stayed this night harsh provision. every one of these people will be offered a work slot. a place in a work program or an annual job, and only those who don't take it will be limited to three months out of every three years. now, i was watching this occur and scratching my head. you look at the amendment, there were no work slots in it. think the sincere live thought they program a already had work slots. if never did. possible bay remember that when the bill got -- i remember leon panetta, president clinton's cleave of staff, saying to me, bob, i think this -- leon had been mr. food stamps in the

house, on the budget committee, and i remember leon saying i thinking this is the most troubling provision in the entire welfare law because it means that people who want to work, search for a job and can't find one, are cut off after three months, and we see that the people who are cut off, their average income is 20% of the poverty line. so, i guess our task is, how do we actually have work opportunities for people, not just cut offs and that what you're trying to find working in parter inship with the states in these demonstration projects cycle guess there's just ten states -- >> reflects that fact that it's all well and good to suggest that you're going to find work slots for folks and find work, but what if you live in a rural community that is isolated, you don't have any public transportation system to larger communities, and you don't have a functioning automobile or vehicle. and there are no jobs being

created in your small town. they may be created 50 miles away from where you are. how to you help that center or you're a returning veteran and dealing with the consequences of having experienced the horrors of war and you're having a hard time adjusting. how do you work through that and still be able to be employed? or you're a single mom and you've got child cair issues and you can't find decent child care. you want to work, you'd love to work. you want to be self-dependent, but the reality is you can't find decent child care and you can't afford it for a multitude ofitude of reasons. so, what we're trying to do with this project is to figure out what the barriers are, and how we can creatively work around them or through them so we actually too what we all want done is which is to link people with jobs.

providing skills. making sure they actually have skilled that are marketable, which is a training and education component. so we're looking at ways which states want to be thoughtful, innovative, try something different. we're willing to let them try something different. maybe cash assistance, maybe paying for child care, maybe providing transportation, whatever. some process by which we are helping them overcome the barrier. then we'll determine what -- there's a very serious component, evaluation.com opinion next of this that will be used in informing the future direction of that program. >> there's a really bright note here. so, the 200 million you're mentioning came out of the farm bill that was developed in the 2013, i think finely signed into law in 2014. in the house there was a very intense and at times partisan debate over these work issues in

the s.n.a.p. program, but the bright note was that ultimately in conference, there was bipartisan agreement and support for the $200 million demonstration project, and then after it was enacted before the demo started, mr. secretary, i remember a conversation you and i had, and you said, bob, we're going to let flowers bloom. we're going to let conservative states test conservative solutions, progressive states test progressive solutions. the issue isn't the ideology, the issue is what works. and we want to find out what works and have it inform future policy. >> we took an additional step after that, which was to establish a center of excellence in washington. the state of washington does a particularly good job of linking these folks with employment opportunities. and we took another nine states and linked them up with the center of excellence, and we actually have 19 states that are

working collaboratively on trying to figure out innovative and creative ways to do this better so we can give states direction and then we should say we're happy to give you've this money and continue to give you the 50-50 money but we want you too use these resources to connect people with job opportunities. that's the right way to deal with reducing s.n.a.p. numbers. seriously, if people were genuinely interested in reducing s.n.a.p. numbers the simplest and easiest way would be to increase the minimum wage. you'll take millions of people who are currently in s.n.a.p. and you'll put them in david category. they're going to need less s.n.a.p. or no s.n.a.p. at all. so i always say if you are truly interested in reducing the s.n.a.p. numbers why aren't we debating in the aisles of congress an increase in minimum wage and depending on individual cities, counties, and states, to have that conversation?

>> this isn't the s.n.a.p. issue but it relates. would like to see us at some point look more at subsidized jobs. we had a subdiced program but mostly in the private sector as part of the recovery act, and within a year there were 50 thune job slots for -- 250,000 job slots for people who cooped be hired. rub run governors were as enthusiastic as democratic ones. and in the aer brookings report on confident that came out in december there was partisan recommendation to look at a subsidized probables -- subdiced jobs program. >> we should be looking at unemployment compensation to courses is that the right model for the 21st century? could that be modernized? ways to try something different and at the end of the day, summarily reducing s.n.a.p. numbers by creating impossible goal -- standards and terms of

people's access to jobs, when you aren't providing -- not taking full advantage of the resources, the states are, and states on another nutrition issue, when we set up the school lunch program we provided states with resources to administer that program. the standards and many states left money on the table in terms of that program as well. so goes back to the block grant issue. they've interior not utilizing the resources beau to don't agree with the programment how can you trust them with a block grants. >> let's turn to child nutrition. disappointing development theirs morning. yesterday the chair of the subcommittee on the house that has jurisdiction over the child nutrition programs. ...

we are not yet at the bipartisan stage, but the bill we propose yesterday, just looking at it this morning, you talked earlier about community eligibility. people on my staff who really know these numbers look at it and tell me that the draft bill, the bill just introduced will take community eligibility, a program under which schools in high poverty areas can serve breakfast and lunch is free, save money on paperwork and applications and reach all the kids. this bill would reduce from 18,000 to 11,000, take 7,000 schools already doing community eligibility and

bar them from doing it in the future. i was disappointed to see that provision, but i don't know if you have had a chance to look at the bill. >> you should feel better about the fact that virtually everyone paying attention to this issue does not like that provision, from the school nutrition association to the folks at usda to advocates for better child nutrition. no one likes the provision because everyone sees the wisdom of having a community eligibility program that reduces the burden of schools at a time when they would like to redirect those resources into improving quality of meals for expanding a breakfast program that did not exist before or providing healthier snacks. at the end of the day, that is not a

good provision and can't imagine it will be part of a final bill. if it were, i stronglywere, i strongly encourage the president to take a serious look at that bill. i do not think the president is interested in having hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of kids disenfranchised from a program that is designed to help them make sure they have adequate nutrition during the day. >> we all hope ultimately we get a bipartisan bill. i can recommend a signature, but we have a processa process to go through to get there. >> we are not there yet. the senate worked hard, listened to one another, found a way to increase our summer feeding program. that is a program i think it is equally important and needs focus because the reality is kids are only in school for hundred 80 days. during that period of time unless we have more aggressive programs there

are many kids who are very food insecure. >> we should vote. sites really, if you look at it, the results are dramatic. the degree to which what is called summer edt come and has nutrition benefits: they don't get the data on the degree to which it helps on the food security front is quite dramatic. maybe you could say a word. you have a terrific provision and thein the president's budget. >> first off, given the current state of the program i am proud of the factory improve the number of meals served from the summer 2009 to last summer. we arewe are serving another half a million more kids than we did in 2009.

the difficulties is roughly 20 to 21,000,000 kids currently participate in free and reduced months. we are probably feeding about 4 million people, 4 million children. there is a significant delta between what we do during the school day in the summer months. one way to address that delta would be to provide parents and children this ebt card, similar to a s.n.a.p. card. >> kind of a debit card. >> which they could use to purchase additional food. why is it important? because there are many people who do not live near a summer feeding site. these are congregant sites. they may be living in a remote rural area. this would give families the ability to purchase additional food so that kids

would be better fed. that would allow us with the pres.'spresident's proposal over the next ten years to gradually increase the number of children that we would be covering to get to the entire 20 to 21,000,000 kids having access to food throughout the entire year. the president's budget proposes this ramp up, were it to be passed by congress we would see an additional million kids next summer receiving the benefits of the presidents program. >> something i have set on other occasions. yes, this is the final budget of president obama. and a proposal like your robust summary would not happen this year, but i cannot remember -- it has been a long time since i've seen a budget from a president that has this many interesting, innovative, i think important new

proposals to deal with poverty is this budget does. and from a poverty standpoint i am hoping people see it as a vision for the future. to look at a number of your proposals, including the starting point: they talk about developing the 1st budget. >> this is a president who grew up relying in part on some of these very same programs. the question you would have to have, what future president are you going to limit today, living in rural areas today, president 25 to 30 years from now. they need the benefit of these programs. the reality is, there are millions of kids. we know if they don't eat right over the summer they are not as well prepared to begin school in august and september which means they

will be a step or two behind. fs the case at the beginning maybe they won't do very well. maybe they a disinterested in school, dropout, and we end up in many cases unfortunately feeding these people three meals a day and i can find facility call the prison. it makes no sense to shortchange the children. it is in our long-term best interest to invest in them and make sure they are well fed uneducated and prepared. if they are more times than not they will succeed. the fact that we have 16, 17 million kids today when the summer struggle to find adequate nutrition is unacceptable. >> we are going to go in just a 2nd to questions and answers from the audience. >> that's great. >> fabulous. >> i like this. [laughter]

>> before we do comeau one more question. clearly these programs are critically important, and by the same token we cannot, not only not totally eliminate poverty but eliminate food insecurity just for food assistance programs. you mentioned employment, minimum wage, childcare. you are the head of -- i think you are the chair of the white house rural council. you look at issues affecting particularly low income families in rural areas across the country. could you talk to us a little bit about food insecurity and poverty from a larger, rural perspective and how you think about that

in the kinds of things you would like to see the nation and policymakers moved toward from that perspective. >> look, 85% of the persistently poor counties were poverty rates are in excess of 20, 25, 30% are rural. add that to the fact one out of every four rural kids lives in poverty, and it is a compelling case to focus and it is a compelling case to focus on trying to make those numbers improve. i advise the president of these numbers, and he suggested the council would be an appropriate place for us to look at innovative and creative ways to do this. we have a rural impact effort focusing on child poverty and then identified ten communities in the country that are looking at what is referred to as a two generation approach, not just focusing employment and training programs in one place and early childhood preschool opportunities for four kids in another place but taking all the programs

and focusing them on the family, dealing simultaneously with mom and dad and child and doing this in ten different communities in ten different ways to see how we might learn better how to utilize programs. this program is also designed to make sure we do aa better job of educating people about the availability of programs. they find they may not be fully aware of the programs that are in fact in place, nor do they have necessarily the sophistication of working through the federal maze to be able to take advantage of those programs. we are focusing on a seriesa series of place -based initiatives, the department of agriculture start of the strikeforce brawl we are taking all mission areas, put a team together, go, go down, link up with the community building organization and say how can we help. we have made over

190,000 in investments in the communities, over $26 billion, and we will see them to begin to understand how to play the game and access these programs. one thing this program is to do is have a separate strategy for rebuilding and revitalizing the rural economy. >> agriculture has been effective and innovative. what i was born in 1950 there were 25 million farmers. 5 million farmers. today they're less than 3 million. if you look at the folks who produce 85% of85 percent of our food, it's 250 to 300,000 people. we did not complement that economy am agricultural economy with other natural resource-based economy that would allow for opportunities for people to do well. we are doing this now. the regional food system, confirmation food system, confirmation markets, trying to rebuild the economy in rural areas.

if you rebuild it and create better paying jobs, more market opportunities come up more opportunities for small and midsized operations. you will see a decline in poverty, and incline opportunity, less pressure on cities command you will see less need for the programs we are talking about here. but you must build the economy, have a strategy, and direct resources in support of the strategy. until this administration i'm not sure we had a defined, focused, comprehensive strategy focused on an important part, a place called rural america. it is 15% of america's population, 35 to 40% of to 40 percent of america's military. if you want young men and women willing to serve the country that you better be paying attention to this part of the country because a disproportionate number

command if there is no economic opportunity there is no hope. if there is no brighter tomorrow, these kids will move and may or may not be willing to serve the country and defend us. it is a value system that is important, and frankly i will say people in my party have not spoken as effectively as i think they need to folks in rural areas. >> we are going to go now to questions. we havequestions. we have a number of interesting questions from the audience. first, how have you worked to reduce the historic stigma associated with s.n.a.p.? >> a couplea couple of ways. i mentioned earlier advising and educating people through a variety of methods. who is receiving s.n.a.p. and talking about the economic benefits in a recessionary time is connected, but we have tried to integrate the families into the sort of general flow of the economy. this is allowed us to move away from the food stamp

motion, allows folks to be in a grocery line. and lie with somebody who is a snap beneficiaries. they have tried to create opportunities for folks to participate in other venues, expanded the ept access to farmers markets. over 6400 can take the ebt card working with foundations to increase the availability of healthy food festivals. andfestivals. and so part of it is better integration and better education about who is receiving teefor. >> i must say, i think the ebt card is important. for decades and decades when you went through the checkout line you had to pull out your coupon book and rip out your food stamps. everyone can see you doing it. the ebt card looks like any

other debit card. it is hard for me to imagine that if the level of stigma had stayed the same as it was, particularly back home we have food stamp coupons, if that were the case we would not have an 85% participation rate with 45 million people benefiting. that is million people benefiting. that is prima fascia evidence. not that we are all the way there, but there has been a significant reduction. >> i think so and if we do a better job with senior citizens, i think thati think that we will see better understandings of precisely who is benefiting from this program which will help reduce. >> the next question is really interesting. do you think that s.n.a.p. results and low income wage suppression, that it leads to employers paying workers lower wages? >> i am not willing to

believe that there are a significant number of people who sit in the back of their operation and to sort of do the calculation, but i do not think -- i think if there is any wage suppression is primarily unintentional, not an intentional decision-making process. you know, i cannot imagine -- i would hope that is not how people think. >> this is something i have been quite interested in. to the best of my knowledge i am not aware of a single peer-reviewed academic study that finds such an effect. and there are reasons for this. if you are an employer and have a worker, you know the wage you are paying network. but you do not necessarily know, is there a spouse,

cohabitant in the household who has a well-paying job, you don't know. which employee is receiving s.n.a.p. and which are not. no employer could run operation where they paid to employees doing the exact same job a different ways level because one is getting s.n.a.p. and one is not. it does not work that way. the only evidence i am aware of is not in the s.n.a.p. program. there are one or two studies that find that because the earned income tax credit has a really positive effect, we are inducing more people to enter the labor market, thereby increasing the supply of workers looking for jobs, it may have some modest moderating effect, small on wages. the overall

effect of the aei tc workers incomes is a huge positive, but this is also one of the reasons the minimum wage and aei tc complement each other. they bring more people into the labor market. but i have never seen any evidence that the s.n.a.p. program, unlike aei tc, it does not have effects on the supply. >> an interesting question. is s.n.a.p. being ignored in the presidential election? if so why? >> i do not think it is being ignored in the sense that i think there has been

a good deal of conversation about poverty, income inequality. i know coming from iowa obviously i watch the presidential campaign begin another was a greata great deal of conversation about economic opportunity, support for programs that would provide people a chance to make it, so i am not sure it is being ignored by the candidates. it may very well be not something that the media is focused on. because they are more interested in the theatrics of the campaign. i guess that is a polite way. it is not as -- not as much advertising is some of the stuff that is being reported. honestly, i think we really

should demand more from our presidential campaigns. not from the candidates, but the campaign in the campaign coverage because there are issues that are not necessarily being discussed as they ought to be for in a serious manner, like the conversation we are having today. rural poverty, i think there are couple candidates have fairly detailed plans of our rural poverty, but there has not been a conversation about it and it frankly is a fairly important topic. >> i wouldi would suspect, it would not surprise me if we see more focus, but we are now in the primary stage. it is not as though there is a burning issue that divides donald trump and ted crews, nor similarly hillary clinton or bernie sanders.

it could be that are bigger differences in that one of the other party's candidate collates. >> there will be an effort as in 2012 and references were made to president obama it is not a discussion with an effort to demonize not just s.n.a.p. but the candidate who believes that there is a reason and appropriate place for the program. ifprogram. if that occurs, they're should be serious pushback by not just the candidate that must deal with this but those of us who understand what this program is and is not. we should not let anyone suggest that there are people, rampant fraud, waste, and abuse.

which one of those do not want to help. i want seniors to be help. that's the kind of debate. >> next question, i'm going to ask the question and then give context. has usda considered eliminating the five-year residency requirement for recent immigrants to receive s.n.a.p.? when the 96 welfare law came out of congress it had really severe restrictions on illegal, not talking about undocumented immigrants, legal immigrants, ls

receiving snap for those benefits. i remember that when the pres. signed the law he singled out to areas that he said in his view went much too far. one with the immigrant restrictions and the other the sum of the snap cuts. and this regard to the immigrant restrictions on 1997 budget act, as i recall , the restrictions on illegal immigrants were removed. a five-year restriction. not something you is a secretary of authority on. >> our focus obviously is on

things that we can't control. we can control encouraging states to do a better job of outreach to make sure eligible people sign up. we can control encouraging opportunities for s.n.a.p. beneficiaries to take their kids to a farmers market and enjoy that experience. we can control reducing error and fraud rates. we can control helping states to a better job of connecting people with work opportunities. the focus opportunities. the focus is on things we can control. i don't know we necessarily have been in the vanguard at this point of figuring out what the policy changes ought to be. as we began preparing for the next farm bill, that is when that conversation would be appropriate, so the next secretary will obviously be engaged. to the extent i had a conversation about s.n.a.p.,

it was in connection with employment and training suggesting the $200 million fund to create new innovative ways to find out how we could link people with employment. >> as we know, when you take on hot button issues to some degree you have to pick your spots. i remember back in 1996 i thought that the immigrant provisions were without close compare, the most unsavory provisions in the law and was very glad that they were substantially altered, although not totally altered and 97. but in terms of the obama administration, obviously the immigrant related issue is elevated, theelevated, the executive order to bring four to 5 million people out of the shadows. i have to say,say, much as i would like to see the five-year restriction eased, i think the president got it exactly right. the top priority in this area is to bring people who

have been here, working, playing by the rules, to bring them out of the shadows. we areshadows. we are waiting to hear where the supreme court will come down on it. >> the next time any of you put a fork into a fruit or vegetable, understand that the likelihood is that fruit investable was touched at some point in time by evergreen hands, probably 70 hands, probably 70 to 75 percent of farm workers are probably not in this country legally but do backbreaking work in order to provide us incredible diversity. take sure you understand part of it was brought to you the folks who are 12 and 14 hour days without much protection because they are here just trying to take care of the family. we don't havewe don't have the courage at this point in time in the congress to fix it. [applause] >> we have been talking about the issues.

an argument can be made, i would agree, that the biggest issue of all for the future of the planet's climate change. how will food insecurity be affected by climate change if we do not address it? >> i have to say, not something i really know about. >> the 1st thing we can do if we are interested in climate and food insecurity is eliminate food waste. waste. 30 percent of all food grown in this country and globally is wasted. in the united states it is a large amount of the solid waste they goes and our landfills, in fact the single biggest solid waste

component of landfills and a producer of methane. if we were able to reduce and eliminate global loss and waste have enough food to feed millions of people. the 2nd thing is to work with agriculture to make sure that we are adapting and mitigating to the impacts of climate because there is no question it will impact and effect. .. we believe there is an opportunity for collaboration on agriculture and the caribbean. we are actually taken a look at every region of the country and the caribbean to figure out

precisely the impact of climate change and what we think vulnerabilities are in terms of agricultural production and produce a series of suggestions in terms of adaptation strategies, using extension to get our producers aware of steps they can take and we have linked that effort with a climate smart agricultural alliance which is 100 organizations in countries working collaborative lead to figure out best practices. there is an eight aggressive action here. were opening up data so it's easier for people to do research. there is a significant focus on this at usda. we will continue to focus on it but each one of us can start today by trying to avoid woodway. >> we are now at the end of our hour. for for people in the audience and people watching, you have just releasing the

seriousness and the words that come to my mind are the quiet but very real passion of thomasville sick, secretary of agriculture. the people were cynical about our political system that our leaders, i think you just seen over the past hour an illustration that our system can and does produce leaders who really dedicate themselves to making our country and our world a better place. we really thank thank you mr. secretary. both are being here for the hour, making the time but more broadly, for everything you're doing on these issues. i want to think that hamilton project for putting this together and for all of you for coming here this morning. thank you [applause].

[inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation]

[inaudible conversation] of 400f

shakespeare on booktv. >> "washington journal" continues. host: back at our table, ben on the top democrat foreign relations committee. i want to begin with the news on flint. "washington times" has the headline "free of charge." and there are more charges to come. -- "three charged in flint water crisis." and there are more charges to come. what is your thought? guest: there is action that could have been taken that could've saved children from exposure to lead, so i am not familiar with the specifics, but it seems to me those that were in charge took action or did not

take action they should have to protect children. the bottom line here is to make sure we have the resources in this country for safe drinking water, clean water, and we do not do that today. this is a national problem. it is not just blends. in baltimore, the water fountains in schools are not been operating for a long time because of lead exposure. we need a stronger effort. yesterday, i introduced legislation with my colleagues in the senate. the concert -- a comprehensive bill that will provide resources, modernizing our laws so that we can make a major change in water infrastructure in america. host: what would change or how would it be a major change? guest: with the current system of providing resources to local resources, a triples the dollars under the revolving funds to provide grants to low-income families to deal with the pipes

that lead into their homes that contain lead, provide them to our schools commission the water that children are drinking is safe. it updates the laws of the environmental protection agency as it relates to the standards notice, sond public it is a conference of bill that deals with water infrastructure and lead poisoning. host: is a bipartisan? guest: it will be. i'm confident and the environmental works committee has been a strong champion of increase in resources for water infrastructure. the appropriations process, we are working with republicans. we hope it will move significant paths this year. flint was a wake-up call. it is a problem nationwide. host: for the legislation deal with the aging water infrastructure nationwide, and if so, what is the cost and how many years? guest: it would deal with the national problem.

the cost of this will be within the budget. we will not add to the budget agreement that we made. we believe this must be a priority. the problem with water for is out of sight, out of mind. you do not see the eroding pipes underneath our streets until they break. when saw in this region river road became a river and had to close, we need to make sure that we modernize our water infrastructure. host: when to you suspect this could actually get a vote? guest: in that environmental works committee, we expect to take up the next couple of weeks the act. we hopes parts of that will be act. included in the we already are considering the appropriations for an extra we hope it will be part of the appropriations. host: let's go to foreign relations. you are the top democrat in that committee. president obama had a two-hour meeting with the king in saudi arabia. some say this is unprecedented

to talk for that long. why do you think you think he did and what is going on with the u.s.-saudi relations question mark guest: i think -- relations? guest: i think both countries, the gulf countries, are critically important in our campaign against isil, extremist forces. i was in saudi arabia a couple weeks ago with some of my colleagues. i met with the kanga. we had a chance to talk. we had our differences. we have had our differences on aria, iran, but we share common mission, and that is to prevent iran from destabilizing the neighboring states, whether it is syria, yemen, olivia. when they -- libya. when they create a vacuum, isil comes in and causes huge problems. saudi arabia understands that and they understand the relationship with the united states is important to stop that. host: president obama called saudi arabia "free riders."

why and did you agree with that? guest: i think all countries could do more. made ated states has major commitment of resources in the middle east, and the united states leadership is indispensable. there is no question, but the countries in the middle east need to do more themselves, including saudi arabia. yes, we would like to see the countries step up and provide more soldiers, resources in a campaign against isil. host: what are they not doing? guest: it is a question of a coordinated plan. the saudis have been focused more on yemen, their neighbor, and they have been providing considerable military operations in that region. that region now has a cease-fire, and we are now in the process, we hope, of getting province between them. if we could do that, the saudis could take some of the military commitments that they used in

yemen and focus that more on the problems we have with isil in syria. that is what we would like to see. yesterday in the papers, it said the administration's goal is to convince saudi arabia that there could be a cold piece between them and iran. to think that is achievable and what would that mean? guest: i think iran is a dangerous country. i think it is naive to think that they will adhere to some type of a cold peace. they are aggressive today and interfering in other countries, so iran is clearly involved in syria, yemen, libya, so i think it is naive to think that they will all of a sudden change their ways. they have supported extremists, sort ofts, and they are don't care whether government is stable or not in neighboring

countries, so i think you cannot be naive and think that iran will be quiet. host: this is the russian post next two daysthe of be an ongoing relationship to set the relationship with saudis on the more solid ground. the obama administration has sold the saudi's more than 95 billion in military hardware over the last couple of years. saudi intelligence has been essential to the counterterrorism fight against al qaeda and islamic state. take a look in "the wall street journal," president obama looks to reassure allies in the middle east. arabiahat, saudi followed by australia, united arab emirates, iraq, egypt, indonesia and the top suppliers of u.s. crude oil, canada and then saudi arabia. talk about that relationship. guest: we have a very broad relationship with the golf countries, including the saudis.

they like i weapons. there are other sources they can get weapons from. they can get weapons from china, russia, europe, there are other sources available to them in order to get arms. they rather deal with the united states for two reasons. one, we have the best weapons, and secondly, we have the best training and they know we are reliable. we also shared the same mission as far as stability in the middle east. they recognize the differences between our countries. we have major problems with the saudis as they relate to human rights, women's issues, foreign labor. we have got to make sure that we do not ignore the fact that we have a strategic partnership with these countries, but we had to nation that whatever we do furthers our interest rate host: with those two interests on the table, let's take calls. in nebraska, republican. yes, i live in hastings,

nebraska, several years ago or last year, the epa came to taste the water. back in 1994, the woman passed away from the water. watersband got a clean place for people to get free clean water and it was dedicated to his wife. epa in it be that the adam -- say adams county would not allow the to test and hastings, nebraska, said they would tested themselves? i don't understand how they cannot have epa test the water. guest: i am not lay with the specific circumstances, but epa does have the responsibility and obligations to make sure water supplies are safe.

not only safe drinking water but clean water and they are responsible for the implementation of the clean water act that was passed in the 1970's. that includes testing. irt of the legislation that saw yesterday, along with my colleagues, would provide a broader testing to make sure that our children are safe in theres to water, and it are any problems, there is a notification that provides for a greater immediate response, including the use of fema if we have a major problem. i agree that epa needs to know and they need to know the status of water to ensure that we have clean and safe water and they have to be able to test. if they're not getting that axis, that is wrong and they need that authority. host: in north carolina, democrat. caller: good morning. my question is simple. i am just curious as to why i

hear no one speaking about the long-term effects to the children that have been drinking this water. it andgoing to pay for is this not a call for reparations? becausecan americans anytime that comes up, who will get the money and he will pay, but when they needed money to bailout the banks, it was no problem. thank you. guest: you raise a valid point. .o lead is acceptable in water it robs children under full potential and it is tragic and the cost is astronomical. let me give you one example that is ready personal in maryland, the case of freddie gray. i think people know about the tragic circumstances that happened when you're ago this undressedhich we had in baltimore. freddie gray was robbed of fiscal potential because of the engagement of law enforcement,

but also because as a young stick, he had blood poisoning, -- lead poisoning and it denied him his full opportunity and cost of problems throughout his life. we risk, at our own peril, the cost and factors if we do not deal with the lead issue. it is not only the humanitarian and right thing to do to make sure that everyone is safe, it is also a tremendous cost to the society. the obligation that the federal government is to make sure that our children are safe. int: three have been charged the flint water crisis and steve on twitter asks, does anyone believe that rick snyder will be indicted by republican attorney general? guest: i know there is an independent investigation being done and the u.s. attorney is looking into criminal matters. i am not up to date on the specifics of a criminal investigation, but i do know that the investigation is ongoing. host: in maryland, john, republican.

caller: yes, good morning. guest: good morning. caller: were you the guy that treaty orthis iranian arrangement to give them back money that was in escrow and i you are talking about iran being involved in all kinds of terrorism, sponsors of terrorism? why did you make that available to the president to force this agreement? host: we will get his response. listen on your tv. guest: i am not sure which legislation you are referring to. the iran agreement was subject to approval or review by congress. there was a resolution of disapproval. , voted against the resolution against approving the iran agreement. it is now the law, and i will make sure that iran never

becomes a nuclear weapon state. what i was able to get done as on theking democrat senate foreign relations committee working with senator corker, the chairman, is to make congress engaged in this so we had more transparency, more committee hearings, we had more public knowledge. i think as a result of what senator corker and i were able to do, there was a close review during the negotiation process. i think we actually got a stronger agreement and better ways of enforcing an agreement and we will continue to do that in congress. i think the congressional role is the right role and oversights as agreements are being negotiated and the president acted under his authority. there were not enough votes in congress to override what he had done. i did not think that was the best agreement moving forward. now it is time to make sure it is enforced and for congress to work with the administration and the