WASHINGTON, D.C. — Even before testimony started at the House Agriculture Nutrition Subcommittee May 20 hearing "Past, Present and Future of SNAP," Republican and Democrat opening comments illustrated vast disagreement on the future of federal nutrition programs funded by the farm bill.

Committee Chair Jackie Walorski (R-Ind.) said the federal government has not coordinated potential duplicate benefits well. "The reality is that a majority of SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) households are also eligible and receive benefits from one of the other major nutrition assistance programs," she said.

"Our job today is to figure out where overlap, duplication or inefficiency exists. Then, we can more expertly target our limited resources to places with potential unmet needs or weaknesses in the system."

The committee’s ranking member, Rep. George McGovern (D-Mass.), said the hearing’s focus on duplication of SNAP benefits missed the point. In his view, SNAP benefits are not high enough to start with.

"SNAP recipients must rely on food banks and charities to have enough food for the month," he said. "While Congress has done its best to lower the benefit or to make it more difficult for eligible individuals to receive the benefit, it has resulted in making hunger worse. And, yes, last year’s farm bill exacerbated the problem," said McGovern, a vocal opponent of nutrition program cuts during that debate.

Testimony and analysis from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) indicated food banks and charities are not the only food sources used by SNAP recipients. The GAO’s Kay Brown said the USDA has not fully addressed a 2010 GAO recommendation to determine where food programs overlapped.

"We believe that further action is needed to identify cost-effective approaches to address potential inefficiencies and unnecessary overlap among domestic food assistance programs," she explained.

SNAP, formerly called food stamps, accounted for more than 70 percent of $104 billion in nutrition program spending for fiscal year 2014, according to the GAO. But little work has been done to identify efficiencies for administrating SNAP and the 17 other nutrition programs.

"To ensure the most efficient use of resources, it will be important for federal agencies to explore cost-effective approaches for addressing potential inefficiencies and unnecessary overlap and duplication among all of the nation’s food assistance programs," said Brown, in the GAO prepared comments.

Angela Rachidi, Research Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), told the subcommittee there could be better coordination between the SNAP and Women, Infants and Children (WIC) programs.

"SNAP retailers are approved and monitored at the federal level, whereas WIC retailers are authorized at the state level," said Rachidi. She also cited duplication of nutritional education programs as another possible area for reform.

Rachidi, who worked at New York City’s main social service agency before joining the right-leaning AEI, told the subcommittee families are hurt in the current system. "The decentralized nature of the current system means that knowledge about families is lost," she said. "Families are ultimately hurt because the system is not set up to treat them holistically and government dollars are wasted."

According to Rachidi, the government could better serve families by consolidating some nutrition programs. She cited uniform nutrition guidelines across programs as well as single-agency retailer authorization for nutrition programs, as ways the programs could avoid confusing families being served by them. Delivering more information to families could improve the usefulness of nutrition programs, she said.

But Sherrie Tussler, executive director of the Hunger Task Force in Milwaukee, disagreed. "I know that you have concerns that federal nutrition programs are duplicative," she told the committee. "But what I see is a patchwork of underfunded programs layered around the shortfalls of SNAP and the National School Lunch Program."

In her view, lack of funding and overregulation keep federal food programs from fully meeting the needs of America’s hungry. Tussler, whose efforts in Milwaukee have leveraged private grants and many other efforts recognized to be innovative in fighting hunger, said SNAP works.

"SNAP is not dictatorial. It lets you shop for food you prefer, and its limits are practical," she told the committee. A lack of federal funding is keeping SNAP from working, said Tussler, who called its funding "wholly inadequate."

Federal spending on SNAP increased during the recent economic downturn. Both Democrats and Republicans agree this was in response to a poorer employment situation and lost wages. The question the House is addressing is whether to cut back on nutrition spending for the long term as the economy improves.

Questions and statements from committee members lasted more than an hour. The testimony also included support for SNAP from Michigan’s Joe Nader, executive chef for Levy Restaurants and the Detroit Lions.

While the partisan overtones that began the testimony persisted, at times, the hearing ended on what seemed a conciliatory note. "These are solvable problems," said McGovern, who suggested the White House could take some lead in developing a national plan to end hunger. "I want us to first fund SNAP adequately."

Walorski said she thought the hearing had served its purpose, and that both sides seemed to be able to agree there is room for improvement.

She described the testimony as "good, solid information that helps us make decisions."